The administrative procedures at 36 CFR parts 218 and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR parts 218 and 219. In general, the notices will identify: The decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or objections. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or objection period. The newspapers to be used are as follows:

The administrative procedures at 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 218 and 219 require the Forest Service to publish notices in a newspaper of general circulation. The content of the notices is specified in 36 CFR 218 and 219. In general, the notices will identify: the decision or project, by title or subject matter; the name and title of the official making the decision; how to obtain additional information; and where and how to file comments or objections. The date the notice is published will be used to establish the official date for the beginning of the comment or objection period.

Regional Forester notices of availability for comment, decisions, and objections affecting National Forest System lands in the State of New Mexico for any projects of region-wide impact, or for any projects affecting more than one national forest or national grassland in New Mexico are published in: Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Regional Forester notices of availability for comment, decisions, and objections affecting National Forest System lands in the State of Arizona for any projects of region-wide impact, or for any projects affecting more than one national forest in Arizona are published in: East Valley Tribune, Tempe, Arizona.

Regional Forester notices of availability for comment, decisions, and objections affecting national grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas are listed by grassland and location as follows:

Kiowa National Grassland notices in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico, are published in: Union County Leader, Clayton, New Mexico.

Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma, notices are published in: Boise City News, Boise City, Oklahoma.

Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas, notices are published in: The Dalhart Texan, Dalhart, Texas.

Black Kettle National Grassland in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, notices are published in: Cheyenne Star, Cheyenne, Oklahoma.

Black Kettle National Grassland in Hemphill County, Texas, notices are published in: The Canadian Record, Canadian, Texas.

McClellan Creek National Grassland in Gray County, Texas, notices are published in: The Pampa News, Pampa, Texas.

Regional Forester notices of availability for comment, decisions, and objections affecting only one national forest or national grassland unit will appear in the newspaper of record elected by each national forest or national grassland as listed below.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Alpine Ranger District, Black Mesa Ranger District, Lakeside Ranger District, and Springerville Ranger District are published in: The White Mountain Independent, Apache County, Arizona.

Clifton Ranger District notices are published in: Copper Era, Clifton, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Mogollon Rim Ranger District and Flagstaff Ranger District are published in: Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Red Rock Ranger District notices are published in: Red Rock News, Sedona, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by the Forest Supervisor and Santa Catalina Ranger District are published in: The Daily Territorial, Tucson, Arizona.

Douglas Ranger District notices for projects occurring within the Chiricahua and Dragoon Mountain Ranges (the Chiricahua and Dragoon Ecosystem Management Areas) are published in: Herald/Review, Sierra Vista, Arizona; notices for projects occurring within the Peloncillo Mountain Range (the Peloncillo Ecosystem Management Area) are published in: Hidalgo County Herald, Lordsburg, New Mexico.

Nogales Ranger District notices are published in: Nogales International, Nogales, Arizona.

Sierra Vista Ranger District notices are published in: Herald/Review, Sierra Vista, Arizona.

Safford Ranger District notices are published in: Eastern Arizona Courier, Safford, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, North Kaibab Ranger District, Tusayan Ranger District, and Williams Ranger District are published in: Arizona Daily Sun, Flagstaff, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Bradshaw Ranger District, and Chino Valley Ranger District are published in: Daily Courier, Prescott, Arizona.

Verde Ranger District notices are published in: Verde Independent, Cottonwood, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Cave Creek Ranger District and Mesa Ranger District are published in: Arizona Capitol Times, in Phoenix, Arizona.

Globe Ranger District notices are published in: Arizona Silver Belt, Globe, Arizona.

Payson Ranger District, Pleasant Valley Ranger District and Tonto Basin Ranger District notices are published in: Payson Roundup, Payson, Arizona.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Camino Real Ranger District, Tres Piedras Ranger District and Questa Ranger District are published in: The Taos News, Taos, New Mexico.

Canjilon Ranger District and El Rito Ranger District notices are published in: Rio Grande Sun, Espanola, New Mexico.

Jicarilla Ranger District notices are published in: Farmington Daily Times, Farmington, New Mexico.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor affecting National Forest System lands in New Mexico, except the national grasslands, are published in: Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Mt. Taylor Ranger District notices are published in: Cibola Citizen, Grants, New Mexico.

Magdalena Ranger District notices are published in: El Defensor-Chieftain, Socorro, New Mexico.

Mountainair Ranger District notices are published in: The Independent, Edgewood, New Mexico.

Sandia Ranger District notices are published in: Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

Forest Supervisor notices affecting national grasslands in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas are published by grassland and location as follows:

Kiowa National Grassland notices in Colfax, Harding, Mora and Union Counties, New Mexico, are published in: Union County Leader, Clayton, New Mexico.

Rita Blanca National Grassland in Cimarron County, Oklahoma, notices are published in: Boise City News, Boise City, Oklahoma.

Rita Blanca National Grassland in Dallam County, Texas, notices are published in: The Dalhart Texan, Dalhart, Texas.

Black Kettle National Grassland in Roger Mills County, Oklahoma, notices are published in: Cheyenne Star, Cheyenne, Oklahoma.

Black Kettle National Grassland in Hemphill County, Texas, notices are published in: The Canadian Record, Canadian, Texas.

McClellan Creek National Grassland in Gray County, Texas, notices are published in: The Pampa News, Pampa, Texas.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Quemado Ranger District, Reserve Ranger District, Glenwood Ranger District, Silver City Ranger District, and Wilderness Ranger District are published in: Silver City Daily Press, Silver City, New Mexico.

Black Range Ranger District notices are published in: Sierra County Sentinel, Truth or Consequences, New Mexico.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor and the Sacramento Ranger District are published in: Alamogordo Daily News, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Guadalupe Ranger District notices are published in: Carlsbad Current Argus, Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Smokey Bear Ranger District notices are published in: Ruidoso News, Ruidoso, New Mexico.

Notices for availability for comment, decisions, and objections by Forest Supervisor, Coyote Ranger District, Cuba Ranger District, Espanola Ranger District, Jemez Ranger District, and Pecos-Las Vegas Ranger District are published in: Albuquerque Journal, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any charges incurred. Callers will incur no charge for calls when they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at lschiller@usccr.gov at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.

Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Kayla Fajota at kfajota@usccr.gov. Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at (434) 515-2395.

Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via the file sharing website: www.box.com, as well as at: www.facadatabase.gov (under the Commission on Civil Rights and selecting the Advisory Committee of interest). Persons interested in the work of this Committee are directed to the Commission's website, www.usccr.gov, or may contact the Regional Programs Coordination Unit at the above phone number.

On September 9, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register the Preliminary Determination and invited interested parties to comment. 1

Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 2 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days, to January 26, 2026. 3 Finally, due to the closure of Commerce offices due to inclement weather, the deadline for this final determination was postponed until the next business day, 4 i.e., January 28, 2026.

A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for this final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 5 The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at http://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by this investigation is certain monomers and oligomers. For a complete description of the scope of this investigation, see Appendix I.

No interested party commented on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the Preliminary Determination. Therefore, we made no changes to the scope of the investigation from that published in the Preliminary Determination.

Because the non-responsive companies did not participate in this investigation, Commerce did not conduct a verification in this investigation. 6

All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs submitted by interested parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.

As discussed in the Preliminary Determination, Commerce assigned to mandatory respondents Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, and Synth-Edge an estimated weighted-average dumping margin on the basis of facts available with adverse inferences (AFA), pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act because they declined to participate in this investigation and therefore did not act to the best of their ability. 7 There is no new information on the record that would cause us to revisit our decision to apply AFA in the Preliminary Determination. Accordingly, for the reasons explained in the Preliminary Determination, and consistent with Commerce's practice, as AFA, we assigned Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, and Synth-Edge a dumping margin based on AFA. 8

Based on our review of the comments received from parties, we made no changes for the final determination. However, based on review and analysis of the record, we made certain changes to the preliminary dumping margins assigned to Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, Synth-Edge, and for all other producers and/or exporters. Further, based on our review and analysis of the information received regarding critical circumstances, we made certain changes to our analysis of imports for all-other producers and/or exporters. For a discussion of these changes, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

In the Preliminary Determination, Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 703(e) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of subject merchandise for Eternal Materials Co., Ltd. (Eternal Materials), Qualipoly Chemical Corporation (Qualipoly), Synth-Edge Advanced Material Co., Ltd. (Synth-Edge), and all other producers and/or exporters. 9 For this final determination, in accordance with section 705(a)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, Commerce continues to find that critical circumstances exist for Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, Synth-Edge, and all other producers and/or exporters. With respect to finding that critical circumstances exist for Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, Synth-Edge, we relied on AFA, pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act. For a full description of the methodology and an analysis of the comments received, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually examined shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any rates that are zero, de minimis margins, or determined entirely under section 776 of the Act. We cannot apply the methodology described in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act to calculate the all-others rate, as the margins applied in this final determination are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act.

Pursuant to section 735(c)(5)(B) of the Act, if the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for all exporters and producers individually examined are zero, de minimis, or determined based entirely on facts otherwise available, Commerce may use any reasonable method to establish the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers or exporters. In cases where dumping margins are determined entirely under section 776 of the Act for individually examined entities, Commerce's normal practice under these circumstances is to calculate the all-others rate as a simple average of the alleged dumping margins from the petition. 8 Therefore, as the all-others rate, we are assigning the simple average of the dumping margins calculated from the information in the petition, which is 130.23 percent. 10 For a full description of the methodology underlying Commerce's analysis, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum.

Commerce determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist:

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

In accordance with sections 733(d)(1)(B) and (e)(2)(A) of the Act, we instructed U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of all entries of monomers and oligomers from Taiwan, as described in Appendix I of this notice, which were entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after June 11, 2025, 90 days prior to the date of publication of the Preliminary Determination of this investigation in the Federal Register for entries produced and/or exported by Eternal Materials, Qualipoly, Synth-Edge, and all other producers and/or exporters. In accordance with section 733(d) of the Act, we instructed CBP to discontinue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise entered or withdrawn from warehouse, on or after January 7, 2026, the first day provisional measures were no longer in effect, but to continue the suspension of liquidation of all entries of subject merchandise on or before January 6, 2026.

If the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) issues a final affirmative injury determination, we will issue an antidumping duty order, reinstate the suspension of liquidation under section 736(a) of the Act, and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties for such entries of subject merchandise in the amounts indicated above. If the ITC determines that material injury, or threat of material injury, does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all estimated duties deposited or securities posted as a result of the suspension of liquidation will be refunded or canceled.

To determine the cash deposit rates in LTFV investigations, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a final affirmative determination of countervailable export subsides, Commerce offsets the estimated weighted average dumping margins in the companion LTFV investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rate. Here, Commerce normally would have adjusted the estimated weighted-average dumping margins that are listed in the table above by the appropriate export subsidy rate determined in the companion CVD investigation to determine the cash deposit rate. However, in the companion CVD investigation there were no countervailable subsidies found. 11

In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, Commerce will notify the ITC of its final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. As Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales for importation of monomers and oligomers from Taiwan, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, all cash deposits posted will be refunded, and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section above.

To determine the cash deposit rates in LTFV investigations, Commerce normally adjusts the estimated weighted-average dumping margins by the amount of export subsidies countervailed in the companion countervailing duty (CVD) investigation when CVD provisional measures are in effect. Accordingly, where Commerce has made a final affirmative determination of countervailable export subsides, Commerce offsets the estimated weighted average dumping margins in the companion LTFV investigation by the appropriate export subsidy rate. Here, Commerce normally would have adjusted the estimated weighted-average dumping margins that are listed in the table above by the appropriate export subsidy rate determined in the companion CVD investigation to determine the cash deposit rate. However, in the companion CVD investigation there were no countervailable subsidies found. 12

In the event that the ITC issues a final negative injury determination, this notice will serve as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.

This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).

On September 20, 2024, Commerce published in the Federal Register a notice of initiation of an administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on steel flanges from India. 1 On October 29, 2024, Commerce selected Norma (India) Ltd. (Norma) and R. N. Gupta & Company Limited (RNG) as mandatory respondents in this review. 2 On December 9, 2024, Commerce tolled the deadline to issue the preliminary results in this administrative review by 90 days. 3 On July 16, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for the preliminary results by 110 days, until November 19, 2025, in accordance with section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2). 4 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in this administrative proceedings by 47 days. 5 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days, to January 26, 2026. 6 Finally, due to the closure of Commerce offices due to inclement weather, the deadline for these preliminary results, is postponed until the next business day, 7 i.e., January 28, 2026.

For a complete description of the events that followed the initiation of this review, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum. 8 A list of topics discussed in the Preliminary Decision Memorandum is provided as an appendix to this notice. The Preliminary Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Preliminary Decision Memorandum can be accessed directly at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The product covered by the Order is steel flanges from India. For a complete description of the scope of the Order, see the Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

In accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce will rescind an administrative review, in whole or in part, if all parties that requested the review withdraw their requests within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. Commerce received timely filed withdrawal requests with respect to Balkrishna Steel Forge Pvt. Ltd., Cetus Engineering Private Limited, and Jai Auto Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1). Because the withdrawal requests were timely filed, and no other parties requested a review of these companies, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to these three companies.

Commerce is conducting this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Act. For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a subsidy, i.e., a financial contribution by an “authority” that give rise to a benefit to the recipient, and that the subsidy is specific. 9 For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions, including our reliance, in part, on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences pursuant to sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, see the accompanying Preliminary Decision Memorandum.

The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to apply companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(e)(2) of the Act. However, Commerce normally determines the rates for non-selected companies in reviews in a manner that is consistent with section 705(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation. Section 777A(e)(2) of the Act provides that “the individual countervailable subsidy rates determined under subparagraph (A) shall be used to determine the all-others rate under section 705(c)(5) {of the Act}.” Section 705(c)(5)(A) states that for companies not investigated, in general, we will determine an all-others rate by weight averaging the countervailable subsidy rates established for each of the companies individually investigated, excluding zero and de minimis rates or any rates based solely on the facts available.

Three companies under review were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross-owned with a mandatory respondent: (1) BFN Forgings Private Limited, (2) Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd., and (3) Munish Forge Private Limited. 11 Accordingly, to determine the rate for companies not selected for individual examination, Commerce's practice is to weight-average the countervailable subsidy rates for the selected mandatory respondents, excluding rates that are zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts available. 12 In this review, Commerce calculated preliminary individual estimated subsidy rates for Norma and RNG that are not zero, de minimis, or based entirely on facts otherwise available. Commerce calculated the rate assigned to the companies under review that were not selected for individual examination using a weighted average of the individual estimated subsidy rates calculated for the examined respondents using each company's publicly ranged values for the merchandise under consideration. 13

As a result of this review, we preliminarily determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the POR, January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023:  14

Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), we have modified the deadline for interested parties to submit case briefs to Commerce to no later than 21 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than five days after the date for filing case briefs. 15 Interested parties who submit case briefs or rebuttal briefs in this proceeding must submit: (1) table of contents listing each issue; and (2) a table of authorities. 16 All briefs must be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety in ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the established deadline.

As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2)(iii) and (d)(2)(iii), we request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs. 17 Further, we request that interested parties limit their executive summary of each issue to no more than 450 words, not including citations. We intend to use the executive summaries as the basis of the comment summaries included in the issues and decision memorandum that will accompany the final results in this administrative review. We request that interested parties include footnotes for relevant citations in the public executive summary of each issue. Note that Commerce has amended certain of its requirements pertaining to the service of documents in 19 CFR 351.303(f). 18

Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. Requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the scheduled date for the hearing. 19

Consistent with section 751(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.

For the companies listed above for which the review is being rescinded, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated countervailing duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse for consumption, during the period January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2023 in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue rescission instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this notice in the Federal Register .

For the companies remaining in the review, Commerce will instruct CBP to assess countervailing duties on all appropriate entries at the subsidy rates calculated in the final results of this review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the Federal Register . If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired ( i.e., without 90 days of publication).

Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amount indicated above with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.

Unless the deadline is extended pursuant to section 751(a)(3)(a) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2), Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, which will include the results of its analysis of issues raised in the case briefs, within 120 days of publication of these preliminary results in the Federal Register , pursuant to Section 751(a)(3)(A) of the Act.

We are issuing and publishing these preliminary results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).

On July 22, 2025, Commerce published in the Federal Register its Preliminary Determination that imports of CWP completed in Oman using HRS produced in China are circumventing the Orders. 1 Pursuant to section 781(e) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), on August 6, 2025, Commerce notified the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) of its preliminary affirmative determination of circumvention. 2 The ITC did not request consultations with Commerce.

On August 7, 2025, Al Jazeera Steel Products Co. SAOG (Al Jazeera) submitted a case brief. 3 On August 15, 2025, the Bull Moose Tube Company, Maruichi American Corporation, Wheatland Tube Company, and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (collectively, the domestic interested parties) submitted a rebuttal brief. 4 On August 21, 2025, Commerce extended the deadline for issuing the final determination in this circumvention inquiry until November 19, 2025. 5 Due to the lapse in appropriations and Federal Government shutdown, on November 14, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by 47 days. 6 Additionally, due to a backlog of documents that were electronically filed via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS) during the Federal Government shutdown, on November 24, 2025, Commerce tolled all deadlines in administrative proceedings by an additional 21 days, to January 26, 2026. 7 Finally, due to the closure of Commerce offices due to inclement weather, the deadline for this final determination, is postponed until the next business day, 8 i.e., January 28, 2026. For a summary of events that occurred since the Preliminary Determination, as well as a full discussion of the issues raised by parties for consideration in the final determination, see the Issues and Decision Memorandum. 9

The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via ACCESS. ACCESS is available to registered users at https://access.trade.gov. In addition, a complete version of the Issues and Decision Memorandum can be accessed at https://access.trade.gov/public/FRNoticesListLayout.aspx.

The products covered by the Orders include certain welded carbon quality steel pipes and tubes from China. For a full description of the scope of the Order, see Appendix I of this notice.

This circumvention inquiry covers CWP completed in Oman using Chinese-origin HRS that is subsequently exported from Oman to the United States (inquiry merchandise).

All issues raised in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice as Appendix II.

Commerce conducted this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226. As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines, pursuant to section 781(b) of the Act, that imports of HRS from China that are further processed in Oman into inquiry merchandise are circumventing the Orders. We are applying our decision on a country-wide basis. See the “Suspension of Liquidation and Cash Deposit Requirements” section, below, for details regarding suspension of liquidation and cash deposit requirements.

To administer the final affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Oman, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications, which allow companies to certify that specific entries of CWP from Oman are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention if the merchandise is not made with Chinese-origin HRS or is made with an input other than HRS ( see Appendix III to this notice).

Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of CWP is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise is not made with Chinese-origin HRS or is made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.

Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation ( e.g., invoice, purchase order, production records, etc. ). With the exception of the entries described below, the exporter certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time of shipment of the relevant entries. The exporter certification should be completed by the party selling the CWP that was manufactured in Oman to the United States.

Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry.

The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit the importer's certification, the exporter's certification, the commercial invoice, and the bill of lading to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) at the time of entry summary by uploading these documents into the document imaging system (DIS) in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE). Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as brokers, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer. Consistent with CBP's procedures, importers shall identify certified entries by using importers' additional declaration (record 54) AD/CVD Certification Designation (type code 06) when filing an entry summary. 10

If it is determined that an importer has not met the certification and/or related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the Order, all unliquidated entries for which these requirements were not met and require the importer to post applicable cash deposits. Commerce may instruct CBP to assess antidumping or countervailing duties at the applicable rate.

The claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.

For all CWP from Oman that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period November 19, 2024 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through August 13, 2025, where the entry has not been liquidated (and entries for which liquidation has not become final), the importer and exporter certifications should have been completed, signed, and uploaded to the DIS in ACE by September 8, 2025.

For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of CWP that were declared as non-AD or non-CVD type entries ( e.g., type 01) and entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption in the United States during the period November 19, 2024 (the date of initiation of these circumvention inquiries), through August 13, 2025, for which the above certification and document requirements were not met, importers must have filed a post-summary correction with CBP, in accordance with CBP's regulations, regarding conversion of such entries from non-AD or non-CVD type entries to AD or CVD type entries ( e.g., type 01 to type 03). The importer must pay cash deposits on those entries consistent with the regulations governing post summary corrections that require payment of additional duties.

Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention with respect to Oman, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3) and (m)(1)(ii), Commerce will direct CBP to suspend liquidation and to require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of inquiry merchandise that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption, on or after November 19, 2024, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the Federal Register .

CWP completed in Oman from HRS that is not of Chinese origin is not subject to this inquiry. However, Commerce finds that CWP completed in Oman using China-origin HRS is circumventing the AD and CVD Orders on CWP from China. Imports of such merchandise are subject to certification requirements, and cash deposits may be required.

Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification and documentation requirements described above and in Appendix III to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation or the cash deposit requirements.

Where the certification and documentation requirements are not met for an entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rates applicable to the AD and CVD Orders on CWP from China. For companies with their own company-specific rates under the AD and CVD Orders, the cash deposit rates will be the company-specific rates. Otherwise, Commerce will instruct CBP to require AD cash deposits equal to the China-wide rate of 85.55 percent and CVD cash deposits equal to the all-others rate of 39.01 percent. 11

Commerce established the following third-country case numbers in ACE for entries of CWP completed in Oman using China-origin HRS: A-523-910 and C-523-911.

These suspension of liquidation requirements will remain in effect until further notice.

This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.

Commerce is issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 781(b) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and either regulations are proposed or, if the taking is limited to harassment, a notice of a proposed IHA is provided to the public for review.

Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking; other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (collectively referred to as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of the takings. The definitions of all applicable MMPA statutory terms used above are included in the relevant sections below ( see also 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

These actions are consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, for both proposed IHAs, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA qualifies for categorical exclusion from further NEPA review.

On April 23, 2025, NMFS received a request from the Navy for an IHA to authorize incidental take of marine mammals during the NBPL Deperming Pier Replacement Project, which involves removing and replacing damaged fender piles at three large piers at NBPL in San Diego Bay, CA. Then, on April 30, 2025, NMFS received another request from the Navy for an IHA to authorize incidental take during the NBSD Chollas Creek Quay Wall Repair Project, which includes removing and replacing the existing quay wall and dock pilings in Chollas Creek, San Diego Bay, CA. Since both projects are proposed by the Navy and are located in San Diego Bay, CA, and the Navy has requested the authorizations be issued near concurrently, NMFS is announcing its proposals of the two IHAs and soliciting public comment within this single Federal Register notice.

Following NMFS' review of the applications, the Navy submitted a revised version of both applications on November 13, 2025. Both applications were deemed adequate and complete on November 19, 2025. For the NBPL Deperming Pier Replacement Project, the Navy's request is for the take of six species of marine mammals, by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment only; for the NBSD Chollas Creek Quay Wall Repair Project, the Navy's request is for the take of three species of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only. Neither the Navy nor NMFS expects serious injury or mortality to result from either activity; therefore, an IHA for each project is appropriate. Both IHAs would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness, and would become effective upon written notification from the Navy to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance.

The purpose of both Navy projects is to maintain structurally sound and operational areas at both naval bases, to continue safely supporting Pacific Fleet surface ships, and to allow berth-side repair, maintenance, and storage of vessels. Both proposed projects are located at naval bases within San Diego Bay, CA, either near the mouth of the Bay at Point Loma (NBPL), or in the south-central part of the Bay, at Chollas Creek (NBSD). The Navy would remove existing piles using a dead pull, high-pressure water jetting, or a vibratory extractor, and install permanent piles using high-pressure water jetting, vibratory hammer, or an impact hammer to replace the existing piers. For the NBPL Project, the proposed activities would result in removing 192 piles and installing 192 piles over approximately 171 in-water work days. For the NBSD Project, 190 in-water work days are estimated to remove 544 piles, and 121 days to install 936 piles. Pile removal via vibratory extractor and pile installation via vibratory hammer or impact hammer have the potential to result in marine mammal harassment, and, therefore, IHAs are warranted.

Each proposed IHA would be valid for the statutory maximum of 1 year from the date of effectiveness. They would become effective upon written notification from the applicant to NMFS, but not beginning later than 1 year from the date of issuance or extending beyond 2 years from the date of issuance. Pile driving is expected to occur at NBPL between June 1, 2026, and May 31, 2027, for 171 days. Pile driving is expected to occur at NBSD between January 1, 2027, and December 31, 2027, for 190 days. However, project delays may occur due to several factors, including project funding, permitting requirements, equipment and/or material availability, weather-related delays, equipment maintenance and/or repair, and other contingencies. For both projects, pile removal and driving would occur only during daylight hours.

The NBPL Deperming Pier Replacement Project is located on the peninsula of Point Loma near the mouth and along the northern edge of San Diego Bay, CA. This area, known as North Bay, extends from the Bay mouth to the area offshore Downtown San Diego.

The NBSD Chollas Creek Quay Wall Repair Project is located in the San Diego Bay in an area known as South-Central Bay. Specifically, the project is located at the mouth of Chollas Creek, a highly militarized area on both sides of the Creek.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers dredges the main navigation channel into and through San Diego Bay to maintain a depth of 47 feet (ft) (14.3 meters (m)) below mean lower low water (MLLW), ensuring safe passage for private, commercial, and military vessels within the Bay (NOAA 2010). In North Bay, typical depths range from 36 to 38 ft (11.0 to 11.6 m) below MLLW to support large ship turning and anchorage (Merkel & Associates, Inc., 2008, 2009). In Central Bay, typical depths range from 11 to 12 m (35 to 38 ft) below MLLW (Merkel & Associates, 2009).

For the NBPL Project, the Navy proposes in-water construction work at three piers: the two Magnetic Silencing Facility (MSF) piers ( i.e., the Deperming Pier and the Electromagnetic Roll Garden (ERG) Pier), and Pier 5002 North Inner Berth. Specifically, the Navy proposes to remove and replace damaged piles at the Deperming Pier and the ERG Pier, and replace plastic fender piles at Pier 5002. The MSF provides mission-critical magnetic treatment (deperming) of Navy surface vessels, and calibration and testing of magnetic signature reduction systems (degaussing), thereby significantly reducing the risk to Navy ships from magnetic mines. The project would maintain the Deperming Pier, ERG Pier, and Pier 5002 in a structurally sound, operational condition so that the Navy may safely continue to support Pacific Fleet surface ships.

During construction activities at NBPL, 192 16-inch timber piles would be removed via vibratory extraction over an estimated 86 days. High-pressure water jetting or dead pull may also be used to remove piles. The installation of the 192 16-inch round fiberglass-reinforced plastic piles would be carried out using vibratory or impact hammers over 85 days. High-pressure external water jetting may be used to loosen the soil before vibratory or impact hammering. Two-inch pile sleeves made of high-density polyethylene would be slipped onto the outside of each 16-inch pile to minimize long-term pile degradation ( i.e., no pile driving is needed). Each sleeve would be bolted in place to the steel pile above the waterline. Additionally, 8-ft (2.4 m) link chains (one for each replaced piling) would be replaced to connect the pier to the piling for extra support. High-pressure water jetting or dead-pull removal methods are not likely to result in harassment and, therefore, we do not discuss these action components further.

The Navy estimates that 171 days are needed to remove and install a total of 384 piles. A floating barge secured directly to the pier would remove and install between two and four piles per day. The sequence of pile removal and installation involves removing three to four piles, then installing three to four new piles. The barge would then move to the next section and repeat the process.

The estimated time to remove each timber pile with a vibratory hammer is up to 5 minutes. Installation is expected to take up to 5 minutes per plastic pile using vibratory pile driving, while impact installation may require up to 600 strikes per plastic pile (see table 1). A bubble curtain or similar attenuation method is not proposed (see Proposed Mitigation section below for rationale).

For this project, the Navy plans to repair Quay Wall Segment B at NBSD along Chollas Creek. This area experienced a catastrophic failure in 2019 due to its age (82 years), which led to undermined sheet piles and the deterioration of utility lines. The project includes demolishing the existing quay wall and associated piles, then building a new quay wall. Additionally, piles would be installed to support a small craft floating dock in the same area as the old location (within Chollas Creek) for berth-side repairs, maintenance, and vessel storage. Repairs would span approximately 1,410 ft (430 m) along the quay wall in about 30 ft (10 m) of water depth. Vibratory extraction would be used to remove the 14-inch steel H piles, 18-inch square concrete fender piles, 18-inch octagonal concrete fender piles, and 24-inch steel sheet piles. Dead pulling would be used to remove the 13-inch round plastic fender piles. Piles would only be removed if they interfere with the installation of new piles. Vibratory pile driving, impact pile driving, or high-pressure water jetting would be used to install the 24-inch sheet piles, 18-inch square concrete fender piles, 18-inch octagonal concrete guide piles, and the 13-inch round plastic fender piles. For reasons described for the NBPL project above, dead pull and high-pressure water jetting are not expected to have the potential to result in harassment and are not discussed further.

The Navy estimates 190 days of in-water work, conducted only during daylight hours, are necessary for this project. Specifically, the Navy estimates 69 days to remove 544 piles and 121 days to install 936 piles. The sequence of pile removal/installation for this project is less certain but likely involves removing all piles, then installing all new piles. However, the contractor may opt to remove and install all piles of a similar nature ( e.g., square and octagonal piles) before moving on to another pile type ( e.g., wall sheet piles).

Anywhere from 2 to 12 piles may be removed per day, during daylight hours only, with 4 to 10 piles installed per day. Vibratory pile removal is estimated to take approximately 20 minutes per pile for all pile types; vibratory pile installation is estimated to take anywhere from 1 to 20 minutes per pile, depending on the pile type, whereas impact pile installation is estimated to take 600 strikes per pile (see table 1).

For both projects, only in-water vibratory pile removal and vibratory and impact pile installation are anticipated to result in marine mammal harassment due to elevated underwater noise. Any above-ground activities ( e.g., repositioning equipment) are expected to result in only in-air/in-ground construction noise below levels known to affect marine mammals, and thus won't be discussed further. The underwater sound generated by these in-water activities associated with the NBPL Deperming Pier Replacement Project may result in Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment of six marine mammal species, comprising six stocks. For the NBSD Chollas Creek Quay Wall Repair Project, underwater sound may result in Level B harassment of three marine mammal species.

With respect to the ambient or background underwater sound levels (SPL) for San Diego Bay, these levels are reported in the “Compendium of Underwater and Airborne Sound Data during Pile Installation and In-Water Demolition Activities in San Diego Bay, California” (NAVFAC SW, 2020). These sound levels were measured for the NBPL Fuel Pier Replacement Project at two locations. The median background underwater SPL in areas of the Bay subject to project construction noise at NBPL averaged approximately 129.6 dB (referenced to 1 micropascal (re 1 µPa)). As described in the Estimated Take section, pile removal and installation noise for the NBSD Project is likely to become indistinguishable from background noise as it diminishes to 126 dB re 1 μPa with distance from the source (NBSD IHA application, citing Dahl and Dall'Osto, 2019).

Proposed mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Proposed Mitigation and Proposed Monitoring and Reporting).

Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding the status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions in the application instead of reprinting the information. Additional information on population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs; https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments ), and more general information about these species ( e.g., physical and behavioral descriptions) may be found on NMFS' website ( https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/find-species ). Furthermore, information may be found in the “U.S. Navy's Dive Distribution and Group Size Parameters for Marine Species Occurring in the U.S. Navy's Atlantic and Hawaii-California Training and Testing Study Areas” (Navy, 2024), available online at https://www.nepa.navy.mil/Portals/20/Documents/Pacific%20Fleet/HSTTEIS/HCTT/DraftEIS/TechnicalReports/AFTTHCTTDiveProfile_TR12243A.pdf.

Table 2 lists all the species or stocks for which take is expected and proposed to be authorized for these activities and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA), as well as the potential biological removal (PBR), where known. The MMPA defines PBR as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for either project, the PBR and annual mortality and serious injury (M/SI) from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.

Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographical area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Pacific SARs (Carretta et al., 2025). All values presented in table 2 are the most recent available at the time of publication (including from the draft 2024 SARs) and are available online at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/ national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-stock-assessments.

As indicated above, table 2 lists all six species that temporally and spatially co-occur during all or a portion of the in-water work associated with the proposed activities at NBPL to the degree that incidental take could potentially occur. Thus, the Navy has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, the incidental take of these six species. Table 2 also lists the three species that temporally and spatially co-occur during all or a portion of the in-water work associated with the proposed activities at NBSD to the degree that incidental take could potentially occur. Thus, for the NBSD Project, the Navy has requested, and NMFS proposes to authorize, the incidental take of California sea lions, the California coastal stock of the bottlenose dolphins, and harbor seals.

NMFS has previously authorized the incidental take of Risso's dolphins ( Grampus griseus ), northern elephant seals ( Mirounga angustirostris ), and Pacific white-sided dolphins ( Lagenorhynchus obliquidens ) in past IHAs spanning over a decade for Navy projects in San Diego Bay (see the NBPL Fuel Pier Replacement projects: 78 FR 44539, July 24, 2013 (Year 1 Project); 79 FR 65378, November 4, 2014; (Year 2 Project); 80 FR 62032, October 15, 2015 (Year 3 Project); 81 FR 66628, September 28, 2016 (Year 4 Project); 82 FR 45811, and October 2, 2017 (Year 5 Project); 85 FR 33129, June 1, 2020 (NBPL Floating Dry Dock Project); 86 FR 7993, February 3, 2021 (NBPL Pier 6 Replacement Project), and 86 FR 48986, September 1, 2021 (NBPL Fuel Pier Inboard Pile Removal Project) for examples). However, based on monitoring reports for these projects, sightings of these species were rare or occurred only during an El Niño monitoring year and are not considered representative of typical species occurrences (see 88 FR 6703, February 1, 2024). Therefore, because the temporal and/or spatial occurrence of Risso's dolphins, northern elephant seals, and Pacific white-sided dolphins during in-water activities for both projects is such that incidental take is not expected to occur, the Navy did not request, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, the incidental take of these three species, and these species are not discussed further (for either the NBPL or NBSD projects).

The most frequently observed marine mammal in San Diego Bay is the California sea lion, which is considered abundant and often rests on buoys and other man-made structures found throughout the North to North Central Bay. Other species known to occur in San Diego Bay include the California coastal stock of the common bottlenose dolphin, which is seen year-round in the North Bay but sightings are sporadic and highly variable, and the harbor seal, which is relatively uncommon in the North Bay. Gray whales, which are occasionally sighted near the mouth of San Diego Bay during their winter migration, are considered rare/seasonal. Lastly, common dolphins (both short-beaked and long-beaked are occasional visitors to San Diego Bay. Recently, the Committee on Taxonomy ( https://marinemammalscience.org/science-and-publications/list-marine-mammal- species-subspecies /) determined that both the short-beaked and long-beaked common dolphin belong to the same species, and we adopt this taxonomy. However, the SARs still describe the two as separate stocks, and that stock information is presented in table 2.

Sightings of common dolphins (both short-beaked and long-beaked) and gray whales are rare occurrences in San Diego Bay, especially in South-Central San Diego Bay, where Chollas Creek is located. Based on the lack of sightings as documented in the NBSD Pier 6 Replacement Project's final report (NAVFAC SW, 2024) during 172 monitoring days, the Navy is not requesting, and NMFS is not proposing to authorize, the incidental take for these three species, and they are not discussed further beyond the explanation provided here.

Finally, there are no known biologically important areas (BIAs) for marine mammals near the project sites that would be relevant to the Navy's proposed activities.

Hearing is the most vital sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of sound exposure, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges that marine mammals can hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities or hear over the same frequency range ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok and Ketten, 1999; Au and Hastings, 2008). To reflect this, Southall et al. (2007; 2019) recommended that marine mammals be divided into hearing groups based on directly measured (behavioral or auditory evoked potential techniques) or estimated hearing ranges (behavioral response data, anatomical modeling, etc. ). Subsequently, NMFS (2018, 2024) described generalized hearing ranges for these marine mammal hearing groups. Generalized hearing ranges were chosen based on the approximately 65-decibel (dB) threshold from the normalized composite audiograms, with the exception of lower limits for low-frequency cetaceans, where the lower bound was deemed to be biologically implausible, and the lower bound from Southall et al. (2007) was retained. In October 2024, NMFS published its 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, which includes updated thresholds and weighting functions to inform auditory injury estimates and replaces the 2018 Technical Guidance referenced above. This 2024 Updated Technical Guidance represents the best available science. Marine mammal hearing groups and their associated hearing ranges are provided in table 3. Of the species potentially present in both proposed action areas, gray whales are considered low-frequency (LF) cetaceans; bottlenose dolphins and short- and long-beaked common dolphins are considered high-frequency (HF) cetaceans; California sea lions are otariid pinnipeds; and harbor seals are phocid pinnipeds.

This section includes a discussion of how components of the specified activities for both the NBPL and NBSD projects may affect marine mammals and their habitat. The Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section later in this document includes a quantitative analysis of the number of individuals that are expected to be taken by both the NBPL and NBSD activities. The Negligible Impact Analysis and Determination section considers the content of this section, as well as the Estimated Take of Marine Mammals section and the Proposed Mitigation section, to draw conclusions regarding the likely impacts of both of the proposed project activities on the reproductive success or survivorship of individuals and whether those impacts are reasonably expected to, or reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.

Acoustic effects on marine mammals during the specified activities for both projects are expected to result from vibratory removal/driving and impact pile driving. While marine mammals in some cases have exhibited little to no obviously detectable response to certain common or routine industrialized activities (Cornick et al., 2011; Horley and Larson, 2023) such as those that occur in San Diego Bay, it is possible that some animals may, at times, be exposed to received levels of sound above the auditory injury (AUD INJ; discussed later) and/or Level B harassment thresholds during the proposed projects. This potential exposure, in combination with the nature of planned activities ( e.g., vibratory pile removal/driving and impact pile driving), means that take by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment could occur over the total estimated period of activities. Therefore, NMFS, in response to the Navy's NBPL Deperming Pier Replacement Project IHA application, proposes to authorize take by Level A harassment and/or Level B harassment from the proposed construction activities. Moreover, in response to the Navy's NBSD Chollas Creek Quay Wall Repair Project IHA application, NMFS proposes to authorize take by Level B harassment only from the proposed construction activities.

NMFS has summarized a brief technical description of the physics of sound and relevant measurement metrics ( i.e., RMS, Peak, and SEL) (NMFS, 2024), available online at https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/ marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance. We refer readers to this document for definitions of the measurement terms and metrics used herein.

There are a variety of types and degrees of effects on marine mammals, prey species, and habitats that could result from the projects. Since both projects would use the same pile-driving and removal methods, below is a brief description of the sound sources the projects would generate, the general impacts of these activities, and an analysis of the anticipated impacts on marine mammals from the projects, with consideration of the proposed mitigation measures.

Impact hammers typically operate by repeatedly dropping and/or pushing a heavy piston onto a pile to drive the pile into the substrate. Sound generated by impact hammers is impulsive, characterized by rapid rise times and high peak levels, a potentially injurious combination (Hastings and Popper, 2005). Vibratory hammers install piles by vibrating them and allowing the hammer's weight to drive them into the substrate. Vibratory hammers typically produce less sound ( i.e., lower levels) than impact hammers. Peak SPLs may be 180 dB or greater, but are generally 10 to 20 dB lower than SPLs generated during impact pile driving of the same-sized pile (Oestman et al., 2009; California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS), 2015; 2020). Sounds produced by vibratory hammers are non-impulsive; compared to sounds produced by impact hammers, the rise time is slower, reducing the probability and severity of injury, and the sound energy is distributed over a greater amount of time (Nedwell and Edwards, 2002; Carlson et al., 2005).

The introduction of anthropogenic noise into the aquatic environment from vibratory pile removal and vibratory and impact pile installation is the primary means by which marine mammals may be harassed from the Navy's specified activities at both NBPL and NBSD. Anthropogenic sounds span a broad range of frequencies and sound levels and can have highly variable impacts on marine life, from none or minor to potentially severe responses, depending on received levels, duration of exposure, behavioral context, and other factors. Broadly, underwater sound from active acoustic sources, such as those in these projects, can potentially result in one or more of the following: temporary or permanent hearing impairment, non-auditory physical or physiological effects, behavioral disturbance, stress, and masking (Richardson et al., 1995; Gordon et al., 2003; Nowacek et al., 2007; Southall et al., 2007; Götz et al., 2009).

We describe the more severe effects of certain non-auditory physical or physiological effects only briefly, as we do not expect that the use of impact/vibratory hammers is reasonably likely to result in such effects (see below for further discussion). For non-auditory physical effects, for the NBPL Project, abundant California sea lions are known to haul out at docks associated with Pier 122 (~363 ft (110 m) to the north) and Pier 40 (~192 ft (58 m) to the south). They are also known to haul out at barges associated with the Everingham Brothers' Bait Barge Company that are from 541 ft to 1,003 ft (164 m to 304 m) east of the NBPL Project area. For the NBSD Project, the species is known to haul out near the NBSD security fence and navigation channel marker buoys. However, California sea lions exhibit a high tolerance to human activity (Holcomb et al., 2009) and opportunistically use almost any available structure as a haul out (NAVFAC SW and POSD, 2013). As for the NBSD Project, the relatively uncommon harbor seals also haul out on rocks, buoys, and other structures. As stated above, the nearest pinniped haul outs are a pair of active Navy docks to the north and the south of the Deperming Pier, with a pair of bait barges to the east. Harbor seals are even more uncommon with respect to the NBSD Project. Ultimately, we expect that any visual and/or other non-acoustic stressors would be limited and that any impacts on marine mammals would be acoustic in nature for both projects.

Potential physiological effects from sound sources, particularly impulsive sound, can range from behavioral disturbance or tactile perception to physical discomfort, slight injury to the internal organs and the auditory system, or mortality (Yelverton et al., 1973). Non-auditory physiological effects or injuries that theoretically might occur in marine mammals exposed to high level underwater sound or as a secondary effect of extreme behavioral reactions ( e.g., change in dive profile as a result of an avoidance reaction) caused by exposure to sound include neurological effects, bubble formation, resonance effects, and other types of organ or tissue damage (Cox et al., 2006; Southall et al., 2007; Zimmer and Tyack, 2007; Tal et al., 2015). However, the Project activities considered here do not involve the use of devices such as explosives or mid-frequency tactical sonar that are associated with these types of effects.

In general, animals exposed to natural or anthropogenic sound may experience physical and psychological effects, ranging in magnitude from none to severe (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Exposure to anthropogenic noise can result in auditory threshold shifts and behavioral responses ( e.g., avoidance, temporary cessation of foraging and vocalizing, changes in dive behavior). It can also lead to non-observable physiological responses, such as increased stress hormone levels. Additional noise in a marine mammal's habitat can mask acoustic cues used in daily functions, such as communication and predator and prey detection.

The degree of effect of an acoustic exposure on marine mammals is dependent on several factors, including, but not limited to, sound type ( e.g., impulsive vs. non-impulsive), signal characteristics, the species, age, and sex class ( e.g., adult male vs. mom with calf), duration of exposure, the distance between the noise source and the animal, received levels, behavioral state at time of exposure, and previous history with exposure (Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007). In general, sudden, high-intensity sounds can cause hearing loss, as can longer exposures to lower-intensity sounds. Moreover, any temporary or permanent loss of hearing, if it occurs at all, would occur almost exclusively for noise within an animal's hearing range. We describe below the specific manifestations of acoustic effects that may occur from the specified activities.

Richardson et al. (1995) described zones of increasing effect intensity that might be expected to occur with distance from a source, assuming that the signal is within an animal's hearing range. First (at the greatest distance) is the area within which the acoustic signal would be audible (potentially perceived) to the animal but not strong enough to elicit any overt behavioral or physiological response. The next zone (closer to the receiving animal) corresponds to the area where the signal is audible to the animal and sufficiently intense to elicit behavioral or physiological responsiveness. The third is a zone within which, for high-intensity signals, the received level is sufficient to cause discomfort or tissue damage to auditory or other systems. Overlaying these zones to some extent is the area within which masking ( i.e., when a sound interferes with or masks an animal's ability to detect a signal of interest above the absolute hearing threshold) may occur; the masking zone may vary widely in size.

Below, we provide additional detail regarding the potential impacts on marine mammals and their habitat from noise in general, starting with hearing impairment, as well as from the specific activities the Navy plans to conduct at both project sites, to the extent available.

NMFS defines a noise-induced threshold shift (TS) as a change, usually an increase, in the audibility threshold at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2018, 2024). The amount of threshold shift is customarily expressed in dB. A TS can be permanent or temporary. As described in NMFS (2018, 2024), there are numerous factors to consider when examining the consequence of TS, including, but not limited to, the signal temporal pattern ( e.g., impulsive or non-impulsive), the likelihood an individual would be exposed for a long enough duration or to a high enough level to induce a TS, the magnitude of the TS, the time to recovery (seconds to minutes or hours to days), the frequency range of the exposure ( i.e., spectral content), the hearing frequency range of the exposed species relative to the signal's frequency spectrum ( i.e., how the animal uses sound within the frequency band of the signal; e.g., Kastelein et al., 2014), and the overlap between the animal and the source ( e.g., spatial, temporal, and spectral).

A temporary threshold shift (TTS) is a temporary, reversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024), and is not considered an AUD INJ. Based on data from marine mammal TTS measurements (see Southall et al., 2007, 2019), a TTS of 6 dB is considered the minimum threshold shift clearly larger than any day-to-day or session-to-session variation in a subject's normal hearing ability (Finneran et al., 2000, 2002; Schlundt et al., 2000). As described in Finneran (2015), marine mammal studies have shown that the amount of TTS increases with the 24-hour cumulative sound exposure level (SEL24) in an accelerating fashion: at low exposures with lower SEL24, the amount of TTS is typically small, and the growth curves have shallow slopes. At higher SEL 24 exposures, the growth curves become steeper and approach a linear relationship with the sound exposure level (SEL).

Depending on the degree (elevation of threshold in dB), duration ( i.e., recovery time), and frequency range of TTS, and the context in which it is experienced, TTS can have effects on marine mammals ranging from discountable to more impactful (similar to those discussed in auditory masking, below). For example, a marine mammal may readily compensate for a brief, relatively small amount of TTS in a non-critical frequency range that occurs while the animal is traveling through the open ocean, where ambient noise is lower and competing sounds are fewer. Alternatively, a larger amount and longer duration of TTS sustained during times when communication is critical for successful mother/calf interactions could have more severe impacts. We note that reduced hearing sensitivity, as a simple function of aging, has been observed in marine mammals, as well as in humans and other taxa (Southall et al., 2007), suggesting that strategies exist to cope with this condition to some degree, though likely not without cost.

Many studies have examined noise-induced hearing loss in marine mammals (see Finneran (2015) and Southall et al. (2019) for summaries). TTS is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to sound (Kryter, 2013). While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises, so a sound must be louder to be heard. In terrestrial and marine mammals, TTS can last from minutes to hours (in cases of strong TTS) (Finneran, 2015). In many cases, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the sound ends. For cetaceans, published data on the onset of TTS are limited to captive bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncatus ), beluga whale ( Delphinapterus leucas ), harbor porpoise ( Phocoena phocoena ), and Yangtze finless porpoise ( Neophocoena asiaeorientalis ) (Southall et al., 2019). For pinnipeds in water, measurements of TTS are limited to harbor seals, northern elephant seals, bearded seals ( Erignathus barbatus ), and California sea lions (Kastak et al., 1999, 2007; Kastelein et al., 2019b, 2019c, 2021, 2022a, 2022b; Reichmuth et al., 2019; Sills et al., 2020). TTS was not observed in spotted ( Phoca largha ) and ringed ( Pusa hispida ) seals exposed to single airgun impulse sounds at levels matching previous predictions of TTS onset (Reichmuth et al., 2016). These studies examine hearing thresholds in marine mammals before and after exposure to intense or long-duration sound. The difference between the pre-exposure and post-exposure thresholds can be used to determine the amount of threshold shift at various post-exposure times.

The amount and onset of TTS depend on the exposure frequency. Sounds below the region of best sensitivity for a species or hearing group are less hazardous than those near the region of best sensitivity (Finneran and Schlundt, 2013). At low frequencies, onset-TTS exposure levels are higher compared to those in the region of best sensitivity ( i.e., a low frequency noise would need to be louder to cause TTS onset when TTS exposure level is higher), as shown for harbor porpoises and harbor seals (Kastelein et al., 2019a, 2019c). Note that in general, harbor seals and harbor porpoises have a lower TTS onset than other measured pinniped or cetacean species (Finneran, 2015). In addition, TTS can accumulate across multiple exposures, but the resulting TTS would be lower than that from a single, continuous exposure with the same SEL (Mooney et al., 2009; Finneran et al., 2010; Kastelein et al., 2014, 2015). This means that TTS predictions based on the total, SEL 24 , will overestimate the amount of TTS from intermittent exposures, such as sonars and impulsive sources. Nachtigall et al. (2018) describe measurements of hearing sensitivity of multiple odontocete species (bottlenose dolphin, harbor porpoise, beluga, and false killer whale ( Pseudorca crassidens )) when a warning sound preceded a relatively loud sound. These captive animals were shown to reduce hearing sensitivity when warned of an impending intense sound. Based on these experimental observations of captive animals, the authors suggest that wild animals may dampen their hearing during prolonged exposures or if conditioned to anticipate intense sounds. Another study showed that echolocating animals (including odontocetes) might have anatomical specializations that enable conditioned hearing reduction and filtering of low-frequency ambient noise, including increased stiffness and control of middle ear structures, as well as placement of inner ear structures (Ketten et al., 2021). Data available on noise-induced hearing loss for mysticetes are currently lacking (NMFS, 2024). Additionally, the existing marine mammal TTS data come from a limited number of individuals within these species.

Relationships between TTS and AUD INJ thresholds have not been studied in marine mammals, and there are no measured PTS data for cetaceans, but such relationships are assumed to be similar to those in humans and other terrestrial mammals. AUD INJ typically occurs at exposure levels at least several dB above that inducing mild TTS ( e.g., a 40-dB threshold shift approximates AUD INJ onset (Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974), while a 6-dB threshold shift approximates TTS onset (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Based on data from terrestrial mammals, a precautionary assumption is that the AUD INJ thresholds for impulsive sounds (such as impact pile driving pulses as received close to the source) are at least 6 dB higher than the TTS threshold on a peak-pressure basis, and AUD INJ cumulative sound exposure level thresholds are 15 to 20 dB higher than TTS cumulative sound exposure level thresholds (Southall et al., 2007, 2019). Given the higher level of sound or longer exposure duration necessary to cause AUD INJ as compared with TTS, it is considerably less likely that AUD INJ could occur.

NMFS (2024) defines AUD INJ as damage to the inner ear that can result in tissue destruction, such as loss of cochlear neuron synapses or auditory neuropathy (Houser 2021; Finneran 2024). AUD INJ may or may not result in a permanent threshold shift (PTS). PTS is subsequently defined as a permanent, irreversible increase in the threshold of audibility at a specified frequency or portion of an individual's hearing range above a previously established reference level (NMFS, 2024). PTS generally affects only a limited frequency range, and animals with PTS have some level of hearing loss at the relevant frequencies; typically, animals with PTS or other AUD INJ are not functionally deaf (Au and Hastings, 2008; Finneran, 2016). Available data from humans and other terrestrial mammals indicate that a 40-dB threshold shift approximates the onset of PTS (see Ward et al., 1958, 1959; Ward, 1960; Kryter et al., 1966; Miller, 1974; Ahroon et al., 1996; Henderson et al., 2008). However, a variety of terrestrial and marine mammal studies (see Ward et al., 1958; Ward et al., 1959; Ward, 1960; Miller et al., 1963; Kryter et al., 1966; Finneran et al., 2007; Kastelein et al., 2013) indicate that threshold shifts of up to 40 to 50 dB (measured a few minutes after exposure) may be induced without resulting in PTS. PTS levels for marine mammals are estimates; with the exception of a single study unintentionally inducing PTS in a harbor seal ( Phoca vitulina ) (Kastak et al., 2008), no empirical data measure PTS in marine mammals largely due to the fact that, for various ethical reasons, experiments involving anthropogenic noise exposure at levels inducing AUD INJ are not typically pursued or authorized (NMFS, 2024). NMFS has set the PTS onset as a threshold shift of 40 dB.

However, after sound exposure ceases or between successive sound exposures, the potential for recovery from hearing loss exists. Thus, because a threshold shift is measured a few minutes after noise exposure does not mean that those initial shifts are persistent ( i.e., no recovery). When initial threshold shifts fully recover back to baseline hearing levels, these are considered TTS. PTS indicates there is no full recovery back to baseline hearing levels; however, it does not mean there is no recovery. Rather, PTS indicates incomplete recovery of hearing. Recovery depends on the initial threshold shift amount, the frequency at which the shift occurred, the temporal pattern of exposure ( e.g., exposure duration; continuous vs. intermittent exposure), and the physiological mechanisms underlying the shift ( e.g., mechanical vs. metabolic). Since recovery is complicated, our current AUD INJ onset criteria do not account for the potential for recovery.

Exposure to noise can also behaviorally disturb marine mammals to a level that rises to the definition of harassment under the MMPA. Generally speaking, NMFS considers a behavioral disturbance that rises to the level of harassment under the MMPA a non-minor response. In other words, not every response qualifies as a behavioral disturbance, and for responses that do, those of higher level or longer duration have the potential to affect foraging, reproduction, or survival. Behavioral disturbance may include subtle changes ( e.g., minor or brief avoidance of an area or changes in vocalizations), more conspicuous changes in similar behavioral activities, and more sustained and/or potentially severe reactions, such as displacement from or abandonment of high-quality habitat. Behavioral responses may include changing durations of surfacing and dives, changing direction and/or speed; reducing/increasing vocal activities; changing/cessation of certain behavioral activities (such as socializing or feeding); eliciting a visible startle response or aggressive behavior (such as tail/fin slapping or jaw clapping); and avoidance of areas where sound sources are located. In addition, pinnipeds may increase their haul-out time, possibly to avoid in-water disturbance (Thorson and Reyff, 2006).

Behavioral responses to sound are highly variable and context-specific, and any reactions depend on numerous intrinsic and extrinsic factors ( e.g., species, state of maturity, experience, current activity, reproductive state, auditory sensitivity, time of day), as well as the interplay between factors ( e.g., Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; Southall et al., 2007, 2019; Weilgart, 2007; Archer et al., 2010). Behavioral reactions can vary not only among individuals but also within an individual, depending on previous experience with a sound source, context, and numerous other factors (Ellison et al., 2012), and can vary depending on characteristics associated with the sound source ( e.g., whether it is moving or stationary, number of sources, distance from the source). In general, pinnipeds seem more tolerant of, or at least habituate more quickly to, potentially disturbing underwater sound than do cetaceans, and generally seem to be less responsive to exposure to industrial sound than most cetaceans. Please see Appendices B and C of Southall et al. (2007) and Gomez et al. (2016) for reviews of studies involving marine mammal behavioral responses to sound.

Habituation can occur when an animal's response to a stimulus wanes with repeated exposure, usually in the absence of unpleasant associated events (Wartzok et al., 2004). Animals are most likely to habituate to predictable, unvarying sounds. It is important to note that habituation is appropriately considered as a “progressive reduction in response to stimuli that are perceived as neither aversive nor beneficial,” rather than as, more generally, moderation in response to human disturbance (Bejder et al., 2009). The opposite process is sensitization, in which an unpleasant experience leads to subsequent responses, often in the form of avoidance, at lower levels of exposure.

As noted above, behavioral state may affect the type of response. For example, resting animals may show greater behavioral change in response to disturbing sound levels than highly motivated animals that are highly motivated to remain in an area for feeding (Richardson et al., 1995; Wartzok et al., 2004; National Research Council (NRC), 2005). Controlled experiments with captive marine mammals have shown pronounced behavioral reactions, including avoidance of loud sound sources (Ridgway et al., 1997; Finneran et al., 2003). Observed responses of wild marine mammals to loud pulsed sound sources ( e.g., seismic airguns) have been varied but often consist of avoidance behavior or other behavioral changes (Richardson et al., 1995; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Nowacek et al., 2007).

Available studies show wide variation in response to underwater sound; therefore, it is difficult to predict specifically how any given sound in a particular instance might affect marine mammals perceiving the signal ( e.g., Erbe et al., 2019). If a marine mammal briefly reacts to an underwater sound by changing its behavior or moving a small distance, the resulting change is unlikely to be significant to the individual, let alone the stock or population. If a sound source displaces marine mammals from an important feeding or breeding area for a prolonged period, impacts on individuals and populations could be significant ( e.g., Lusseau and Bejder, 2007; Weilgart, 2007; NRC, 2005). However, there are broad categories of potential response, which we describe in greater detail here, that include alteration of dive behavior, alteration of foraging behavior, effects on breathing, interference with or alteration of vocalization, avoidance, and flight.

Changes in dive behavior can vary widely and may consist of increased or decreased dive times and surface intervals as well as changes in the rates of ascent and descent during a dive ( e.g., Frankel and Clark, 2000; Costa et al., 2003; Ng and Leung, 2003; Nowacek et al., 2004; Goldbogen et al., 2013a, 2013b; Blair et al., 2016). Variations in dive behavior may reflect interruptions in biologically significant activities ( e.g., foraging) or they may be of little biological significance. The impact of an alteration in dive behavior resulting from acoustic exposure depends on what the animal is doing at the time of exposure and on the type and magnitude of the response.

Disruption of feeding behavior can be difficult to correlate with anthropogenic sound exposure, so it is usually inferred by observed displacement from known foraging areas, the appearance of secondary indicators ( e.g., bubble nets or sediment plumes), or changes in dive behavior. As for other types of behavioral response, the frequency, duration, and temporal pattern of signal presentation, as well as differences in species sensitivity, are likely contributing factors to differences in response in any given circumstance ( e.g., Croll et al., 2001; Nowacek et al., 2004; Madsen et al., 2006; Yazvenko et al., 2007). A determination of whether foraging disruptions incur fitness consequences would require information on, or estimates of, the energetic requirements of the affected individuals, the relationship between prey availability, foraging effort, and success, and the animal's life history stage.

Respiration rates vary naturally with different behaviors, and alterations in breathing rate, as a function of acoustic exposure, can be expected to co-occur with other behavioral reactions, such as a flight response or an alteration in diving. However, respiration rates in and of themselves may be representative of annoyance or an acute stress response. Various studies have shown that respiration rates may either be unaffected or could increase, depending on the species and signal characteristics, again highlighting the importance of understanding species differences in the tolerance of underwater noise when determining the potential for impacts resulting from anthropogenic sound exposure ( e.g., Kastelein et al., 2001; 2005; 2006; Gailey et al., 2007). For example, harbor porpoise respiration rates increased in response to pile driving sounds at and above a received broadband SPL of 136 dB (zero-peak SPL: 151 dB re 1 μPa; SEL of a single strike (SEL ss ): 127 dB re 1 μPa 2 -s) (Kastelein et al., 2013).

Avoidance is the displacement of an individual from an area or migration path due to the presence of a sound or other stressors, and is one of the most obvious manifestations of disturbance in marine mammals (Richardson et al., 1995). Avoidance may be short-term, with animals returning to the area once the noise has ceased ( e.g., Bowles et al., 1994; Goold, 1996; Stone et al., 2000; Morton and Symonds, 2002; Gailey et al., 2007). Longer-term displacement is possible, however, which may lead to changes in the abundance or distribution patterns of the affected species in the affected region if habituation to the sound does not occur ( e.g., Blackwell et al., 2004; Bejder et al., 2006; Teilmann et al., 2006).

A flight response is a dramatic change in normal movement, with directed, rapid movement away from the perceived location of a sound source. The flight response differs from other avoidance responses in its intensity ( e.g., directed movement and travel rate). Relatively little information exists on the flight responses of marine mammals to anthropogenic signals, although observations of flight responses to the presence of predators have been made (Connor and Heithaus, 1996; Bowers et al., 2018). The result of a flight response could range from brief, temporary exertion and displacement from the area where the signal provokes flight to, in extreme cases, marine mammal strandings (England et al., 2001). However, it should be noted that response to a perceived predator does not necessarily invoke flight (Ford and Reeves, 2008), and whether individuals are solitary or in groups may influence the response.

Behavioral disturbance can also affect marine mammals in more subtle ways. Increased vigilance may incur costs from the diversion of attention ( i.e., when a response requires heightened vigilance, it may come at the expense of reduced attention to other critical behaviors, such as foraging or resting). These effects have generally not been demonstrated in marine mammals, but studies of fishes and terrestrial animals have shown that increased vigilance may substantially reduce feeding rates ( e.g., Beauchamp and Livoreil, 1997; Fritz et al., 2002; Purser and Radford, 2011). In addition, chronic disturbance can cause population declines through reductions in fitness ( e.g., declines in body condition) and subsequent reductions in reproductive success, survival, or both ( e.g., Harrington and Veitch, 1992; Daan et al., 1996; Bradshaw et al., 1998). However, Ridgway et al. (2006) reported that increased vigilance in bottlenose dolphins exposed to sound over a 5-day period did not result in sleep deprivation or stress.

Many animals perform vital functions, such as feeding, resting, traveling, and socializing, on a diel cycle (24-hour cycle). Disruption of such functions resulting from reactions to stressors, such as sound exposure, is more likely to be significant if it lasts more than one diel cycle or recurs on subsequent days (Southall et al., 2007). Consequently, a behavioral response lasting less than one day and not recurring on subsequent days is not considered particularly severe unless it could directly affect reproduction or survival (Southall et al., 2007). Note that there is a difference between multi-day substantive ( i.e., meaningful) behavioral reactions and multi-day anthropogenic activities. For example, just because an activity lasts multiple days does not necessarily mean that individual animals are exposed to activity-related stressors for multiple days, or, further, exposed in a manner that results in sustained, multi-day, substantive behavioral responses.

An animal's perception of a threat may be sufficient to trigger stress responses that include some combination of behavioral, autonomic nervous system, neuroendocrine, and immune responses ( e.g., Selye, 1950; Moberg, 2000). In many cases, an animal's first and sometimes most economical response (in terms of energetic costs) is behavioral avoidance of the potential stressor. Autonomic nervous system responses to stress typically involve changes in heart rate, blood pressure, and gastrointestinal activity. These responses have a relatively short duration and may or may not have a significant long-term effect on an animal's fitness.

Neuroendocrine stress responses often involve the hypothalamus-pituitary-adrenal system. Virtually all neuroendocrine functions that are affected by stress—including immune competence, reproduction, metabolism, and behavior—are regulated by pituitary hormones. Stress-induced changes in pituitary hormone secretion have been implicated in reproductive failure, altered metabolism, reduced immune competence, and behavioral disturbances ( e.g., Moberg, 1987; Blecha, 2000). Increases in glucocorticoid levels are also associated with stress (Romano et al., 2004).

The primary distinction between stress (which is adaptive and does not normally place an animal at risk) and “distress” is the cost of the response. During a stress response, an animal uses its glycogen stores, which can be quickly replenished once the stress is alleviated. In such circumstances, the cost of the stress response would not pose serious fitness consequences. However, when an animal does not have sufficient energy reserves to satisfy the energetic costs of a stress response, energy resources must be diverted from other functions. This state of distress will last until the animal replenishes its energy reserves to a sufficient level to restore normal function.

Relationships between these physiological mechanisms, animal behavior, and the costs of stress responses are well-studied through controlled experiments and for both laboratory and free-ranging animals ( e.g., Holberton et al., 1996; Hood et al., 1998; Jessop et al., 2003; Krausman et al., 2004; Lankford et al., 2005; Ayres et al., 2012; Yang et al., 2022). Stress responses to exposure to anthropogenic sounds or other stressors, and their effects on marine mammals, have also been reviewed (Fair and Becker, 2000; Romano et al., 2002b) and, more rarely, studied in wild populations ( e.g., Romano et al., 2002a). For example, Rolland et al. (2012) found that noise reduction from reduced ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy was associated with decreased stress in North Atlantic right whales. In addition, Lemos et al. (2022) observed a correlation between higher levels of fecal glucocorticoid metabolite concentrations (indicative of a stress response) and vessel traffic in gray whales. Yang et al. (2022) studied behavioral and physiological responses in captive bottlenose dolphins exposed to playbacks of “pile-driving-like” impulsive sounds, finding significant changes in cortisol and other physiological indicators, but only minor behavioral changes. These and other studies lead to a reasonable expectation that some marine mammals will experience physiological stress responses upon exposure to acoustic stressors, and that some of these responses may be classified as “distress.” In addition, any animal experiencing TTS would likely also experience stress responses (NRC, 2005); however, distress is unlikely to result from these projects based on observations of marine mammals during previous, similar construction projects in San Diego Bay.

Since many marine mammals rely on sound to find prey, moderate social interactions, and facilitate mating (Tyack, 2008), noise from anthropogenic sound sources can interfere with these functions, but only if the noise spectrum overlaps with the hearing sensitivity of the receiving marine mammal (Southall et al., 2007; Clark et al., 2009; Hatch et al., 2012). Chronic exposure to excessive, though not high-intensity, noise could cause masking at specific frequencies for marine mammals that rely on sound for vital biological functions (Clark et al., 2009). Acoustic masking is when other noises, such as from human sources, interfere with an animal's ability to detect, recognize, or discriminate between acoustic signals of interest ( e.g., those used for intraspecific communication and social interactions, prey detection, predator avoidance, navigation) (Richardson et al., 1995; Erbe et al., 2016).

The frequency range of the potentially masking sound is important in determining any potential behavioral impacts. For example, low-frequency signals may have less effect on high-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes but are more likely to affect the detection of mysticete communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds such as those produced by surf and some prey species. The masking of communication signals by anthropogenic noise may be considered as a reduction in the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009), and may result in energetic or other costs as animals change their vocalization behavior ( e.g., Miller et al., 2000; Foote et al., 2004; Parks et al., 2007; Di Iorio and Clark, 2010; Holt et al., 2009). Masking can be reduced in situations where the signal and noise come from different directions (Richardson et al., 1995), through amplitude modulation of the signal, or through other compensatory behaviors, including modifications of the acoustic properties of the signal or the signaling behavior (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013). Masking can be tested directly in captive species ( e.g., Erbe, 2008), but in wild populations it must be either modeled or inferred from evidence of masking compensation. Few studies have addressed real-world masking sounds likely to be experienced by marine mammals in the wild ( e.g., Branstetter et al., 2013).

Masking occurs in the frequency band that the animals use, and is more likely to occur in the presence of broadband, relatively continuous noise sources such as vibratory pile removal or installation. The energy distribution of pile-driving sound spans a broad frequency spectrum and is expected to fall within the audible range of marine mammals present in the project areas. Since noises generated from the proposed construction activities are mostly concentrated at low frequencies (<2 kHz), these activities likely have less effect on mid-frequency echolocation sounds produced by odontocetes (toothed whales). However, lower-frequency noises are more likely to affect the detection of communication calls and other potentially important natural sounds, such as surf and prey noise. Low-frequency noise may also affect communication signals when they occur near the noise band, thereby reducing the communication space of animals ( e.g., Clark et al., 2009) and increasing stress levels ( e.g., Holt et al., 2009). Unlike TS, masking, which can occur over large temporal and spatial scales, can potentially affect the species at population, community, or even ecosystem levels, in addition to individual levels. Masking affects both senders and receivers of signals, and at higher levels and for longer durations could have long-term chronic effects on marine mammal species and populations. However, the noise generated by the Navy's proposed activities would occur only intermittently, across an estimated 171 and 190 days, respectively, at both proposed activity locations (NBPL and NBSD) during the authorization periods, in a relatively small area focused around the proposed construction sites. Thus, while the Navy's proposed activities may mask some acoustic signals relevant to the daily behavior of marine mammals, the short-term duration and limited areas affected make it very unlikely that the fitness of individual marine mammals would be affected.

The ability of a noise source to mask biologically important sounds depends on the characteristics of both the noise source and the signal of interest ( e.g., signal-to-noise ratio, temporal variability, direction), in relation to each other and to an animal's hearing abilities ( e.g., sensitivity, frequency range, critical ratios, frequency discrimination, directional discrimination, age, or TTS hearing loss), and existing ambient noise and propagation conditions (Hotchkin and Parks, 2013).

Marine mammals vocalize for different purposes and across multiple modes, such as whistling, echolocation click production, calling, and singing. Changes in vocalization behavior in response to anthropogenic noise can occur across any of these modes and may result from a need to compete with increased background noise, or may reflect increased vigilance or a startle response. For example, in the presence of potentially masking signals, humpback whales ( Megaptera novaeangliae ) and killer whales ( Orcinus orca ) have been observed to increase the length of their songs (Miller et al., 2000; Fristrup et al., 2003) or vocalizations (Foote et al., 2004), respectively, while North Atlantic right whales ( Eubalaena glacialis ) have been observed to shift the frequency content of their calls upward while reducing the rate of calling in areas of increased anthropogenic noise (Parks et al., 2007). Fin whales ( Balaenoptera physalus physalus ) have also been documented to lower the bandwidth, peak frequency, and center frequency of their vocalizations in the presence of increased background noise from large vessels (Castellote et al., 2012). Other alterations to communication signals have also been observed. For example, gray whales, in response to playback experiments that exposed them to vessel noise, have been observed to increase their vocalization rate and produce louder signals during periods of increased outboard engine noise (Dahlheim and Castellote, 2016). Alternatively, in some cases, animals may cease sound production during the production of aversive signals (Bowles et al., 1994; Wisniewska et al., 2018).

Under certain circumstances, marine mammals that experience significant masking could also be impaired in maximizing their performance fitness for survival and reproduction. Therefore, when the coincident (masking) sound is human-made, it may be considered harassment if it disrupts or alters critical behaviors. It is important to distinguish TTS and PTS, which persist after the sound exposure, from masking, which occurs during the sound exposure. Because masking (without resulting in TS) is not associated with abnormal physiological function, it is not considered a physiological effect but rather a potential behavioral effect (though not necessarily one associated with harassment). Therefore, under certain circumstances, marine mammals whose acoustic sensors or environment are severely masked could also be impaired in maximizing their performance fitness for survival and reproduction.

Pinnipeds occurring near either project site could be exposed to airborne sounds associated with construction activities, depending on their distance from these activities, which could cause behavioral harassment. Airborne noise would primarily be an issue for pinnipeds that are swimming or hauled out near either project site, within the range of noise levels elevated above the airborne acoustic harassment criteria. Although pinnipeds are known to haul out regularly on man-made objects, we believe that incidents of take resulting solely from airborne sound are unlikely due to the proximity between the proposed project areas and the known haul out sites ( e.g., on docks associated with Pier 122 and Pier 40 for the NBPL project, and on the security fencing and barges associated with the Everingham Brothers' Bait Barge Company for the NBSD project) in San Diego Bay. Cetaceans are not expected to be exposed to airborne sounds that would result in harassment as defined under the MMPA.

We recognize that pinnipeds in the water may be exposed to airborne sound that could result in behavioral harassment when they lift their heads above the water or when they haul out. Most likely, airborne sound would cause behavioral responses similar to those discussed above in relation to underwater sound. For instance, anthropogenic sound could cause hauled-out pinnipeds to exhibit changes in their normal behavior, such as a reduction in vocalizations, or to flush from haulouts, temporarily abandon the area, and/or move further from the source. However, these animals previously would have been “taken” because of exposure to underwater sound above the behavioral harassment thresholds, which are, in all cases, larger than those associated with airborne sound. Thus, the behavioral harassment of these animals is already accounted for in these estimates of potential take. Therefore, we do not believe that authorization of additional incidental take resulting from airborne sound for pinnipeds is warranted for either project, and airborne sound is not discussed further here.

The Navy's proposed activities for both projects could have localized, temporary impacts on marine mammal habitat, including prey, due to increased in-water noise levels. Increased noise levels may affect the acoustic habitat and adversely affect marine mammal prey in the vicinity of the project areas (see discussion below). Elevated levels of underwater noise would ensonify the project areas where both fishes and mammals occur and could affect foraging success. Additionally, marine mammals may avoid the area during the proposed construction activities; however, any displacement due to noise is expected to be temporary and not to result in long-term effects on individuals or populations.

The total area likely impacted by the Navy's proposed activities at NBPL and NBSD is relatively small compared to the available habitat within and outside of San Diego Bay. Avoidance by potential prey ( i.e., fish) of the immediate areas due to increased noise is possible. The duration of fish and marine mammal avoidance of this area after construction stops is unknown, but a rapid return to normal recruitment, distribution, and behavior is anticipated. Any behavioral avoidance by fish or marine mammals of either disturbed area would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity.

The proposed projects would occur within the same footprint as existing marine infrastructure. The nearshore and intertidal habitats where the proposed projects would occur are in industrialized areas with relatively high marine vessel traffic. Temporary, intermittent, and short-term habitat alteration may result from increased noise levels during the proposed construction activities. Effects on marine mammal habitat would be limited to temporary displacement from pile removal and installation noise, and effects on prey species would be similarly limited in time and space.

Temporary and localized reduction in water quality would occur as a result of in-water construction activities. Most of this effect would occur during the removal and installation of piles, when bottom sediments are disturbed, and may temporarily increase suspended sediment in the project area. During pile extraction, sediment attached to the pile moves vertically through the water column causing a sediment plume. However, since currents are so strong in the area, following the completion of sediment-disturbing activities, suspended sediment in the water column should dissipate and quickly return to background levels across all construction scenarios.

Turbidity in the water column can reduce dissolved oxygen levels and irritate the gills of prey fish in the proposed project areas. Studies of the effects of turbid water on fish (marine mammal prey) suggest that concentrations of suspended sediment can reach thousands of milligrams per liter before an acute toxic reaction is expected (Burton, 1993). However, turbidity plumes associated with the projects would be temporary and localized, and fish in the proposed project areas would be able to move away from and avoid the areas where plumes may occur.

Overall, the water quality in the immediate area that is likely impacted by the proposed construction activities for both projects is relatively small compared to the available marine mammal habitat within and surrounding San Diego Bay. Therefore, it is expected that water quality impacts on prey fish species due to turbidity, and therefore on marine mammals, would be minimal and temporary.

Sound may affect marine mammals by altering the abundance, behavior, or distribution of prey species ( e.g., crustaceans, cephalopods, fishes, zooplankton). Marine mammal prey varies by species, season, and location, and for some, it is not well documented. Studies regarding the effects of noise on known marine mammal prey are described here.

Fishes use the soundscape and components of sound in their environment to perform important functions such as foraging, predator avoidance, mating, and spawning ( e.g., Zelick et al., 1999; Fay, 2009). Depending on their hearing anatomy and peripheral sensory structures, which vary among species, fishes hear sounds using pressure- and particle-motion sensitivity and detect the motion of surrounding water (Fay et al., 2008). The potential effects of noise on fishes depends on the overlapping frequency range, distance from the sound source, water depth of exposure, and species-specific hearing sensitivity, anatomy, and physiology. Key impacts on fishes may include behavioral responses, hearing damage, barotrauma (pressure-related injuries), and mortality.

Fish react to especially strong and/or intermittent low-frequency sounds, and behavioral responses such as flight or avoidance are the most likely effects. Short-duration, sharp sounds can cause overt or subtle changes in fish behavior and local distribution. The reaction of fish to noise depends on their physiological state, past exposures, motivation ( e.g., feeding, spawning, migration), and other environmental factors. Hastings and Popper (2005) identified several studies that suggest fish may relocate to avoid certain areas of sound energy. Additional studies have documented effects of pile driving on fishes ( e.g., Scholik and Yan, 2001, 2002; Popper and Hastings, 2009). Several studies have demonstrated that impulse sounds might affect the distribution and behavior of some fishes, potentially impacting foraging opportunities or increasing energetic costs ( e.g., Fewtrell and McCauley, 2012; Pearson et al., 1992; Skalski et al., 1992; Santulli et al., 1999; Paxton et al., 2017). However, some studies have shown no or slight reaction to impulse sounds ( e.g., Peña et al., 2013; Wardle et al., 2001; Jorgenson and Gyselman, 2009; Cott et al., 2012). More commonly, though, the impacts of noise on fishes are temporary.

SPLs of sufficient strength have been known to cause injury to fishes and fish mortality (summarized in Popper et al., 2014). However, in most fish species, hair cells in the ear continuously regenerate, and loss of auditory function is likely restored when damaged cells are replaced with new cells. Halvorsen et al. (2012b) showed that a TTS of 4-6 dB was recoverable within 24 hours in one species. Impacts would be most severe when the individual fish is near the source, and the exposure duration is long. Injury caused by barotrauma can range from slight to severe and can cause death, and is most likely for fish with swim bladders. Barotrauma injuries have been documented during controlled exposure to impact pile driving (Halvorsen et al., 2012a; Casper et al., 2013, 2017).

Fish populations in the proposed project area that serve as prey for marine mammals could be temporarily affected by noise from pile removal and installation. The frequency range in which fishes generally perceive underwater sounds is 50 to 2,000 Hz, with peak sensitivities below 800 Hz (Popper and Hastings, 2009). Fish behavior or distribution may change, especially in response to strong and/or intermittent sounds that could harm fish. High underwater SPLs have been documented to alter behavior, cause hearing loss, and injure or kill individual fish by causing serious internal injury (Hastings and Popper, 2005).

Zooplankton is a food source for several marine mammal species, as well as a food source for fish that are then preyed upon by marine mammals. Population effects on zooplankton could indirectly affect marine mammals. Data are limited on the effects of underwater sound on zooplankton species, particularly sound from construction (Erbe et al., 2019). Popper and Hastings (2009) reviewed information on the effects of human-generated sound and concluded that no substantive data are available on whether sound levels from pile driving, seismic activity, or other human-made sources would have physiological effects on invertebrates. Any such effects would be limited to the area very near (1 to 5 m) the sound source and would result in no population effects because of the relatively small area affected at any one time and the reproductive strategy of most zooplankton species (short generation, high fecundity, and very high natural mortality). No adverse impact on zooplankton populations is expected from the specified activities, due in part to their large reproductive capacity and naturally high levels of predation and mortality. Any mortalities or impacts that might occur would be negligible.

The greatest potential impact on marine mammal prey during construction would occur during impact pile driving. Vibratory pile removal/installation may elicit behavioral responses in fishes, such as temporary avoidance of the area, but is unlikely to cause injuries to fishes or have persistent effects on local fish populations. In-water construction activities would only occur during daylight hours, allowing fish to forage and transit the project area in the evening. Construction would also have minimal permanent and temporary impacts on benthic invertebrate species, a marine mammal prey source. Additionally, the proposed project areas are low-quality habitats, as both areas are already highly developed and experience high levels of anthropogenic noise from regular naval operations and other vessel traffic.

The proposed projects are not expected to result in any habitat-related effects that could cause significant or long-term negative consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations, since removal and installation of in-water piles would be temporary and intermittent. The areas affected by these projects are relatively small compared to the available habitat just outside the project areas, and neither project would affect any areas of particular importance. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. As described in the preceding, the potential for the Navy's construction at NBPL or NBSD to affect the availability of prey to marine mammals or to meaningfully impact the quality of physical or acoustic habitat is considered to be insignificant. Therefore, the impacts of the projects are not likely to adversely affect marine mammal foraging habitat in the proposed project areas.

In summary, given the relatively small areas being affected, as well as the temporary and mostly transitory nature of the proposed construction activities, any adverse effects from the Navy's NBPL or NBSD activities on prey habitat or prey populations are expected to be minor and temporary. The most likely impact on fishes at the project sites would be temporary avoidance of the area. Any behavioral avoidance by fish of the disturbed areas would still leave significantly large areas of fish and marine mammal foraging habitat in the nearby vicinity. Thus, we preliminarily conclude that the impacts of the specified activities at both the NBPL and NBSD are not likely to have more than short-term adverse effects on any prey habitat or populations of prey species. Further, any impacts on marine mammal habitat are not expected to result in significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or to contribute to adverse impacts on their populations.

This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes proposed for authorization under both IHAs, which will inform NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” the negligible impact determinations, and impacts on subsistence uses.

Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except for certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by disrupting behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).

Authorized takes would predominantly be by Level B harassment for both the NBPL and NBSD Projects, as using acoustic sources ( i.e., vibratory and impact pile driving) can potentially disrupt behavioral patterns for individual marine mammals. There is also some potential for AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to result for six species of marine mammals incidental to the NBPL Project. As for the NBSD Project, due to the location within South-Central San Diego Bay in Chollas Creek, AUD INJ is not anticipated to occur for any of the three species for which harassment is proposed for authorization due to the low noise energy marine mammals may be exposed (resulting in very small distances to the Level A harassment threshold as described below). The proposed mitigation and monitoring measures for both projects are expected to minimize the amount and severity of the taking to the extent practicable.

As previously described, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or proposed to be authorized for either proposed activity. Below, we describe how the proposed take numbers are estimated.

For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering (1) acoustic criteria above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates that there is some reasonable potential for marine mammals to be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of AUD INJ; (2) the area or volume of water that would be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. While these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available ( e.g., previous monitoring results or average group size). Below, we describe the factors considered here in more detail and present the proposed take estimates.

NMFS recommends the use of acoustic criteria that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would reasonably expect to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or incur AUD INJ of some degree (equated to Level A harassment). Below, we describe the thresholds used by the Navy and NMFS for this analysis.

Though significantly driven by the received level, the onset of behavioral disturbance from anthropogenic noise exposure is also informed to varying degrees by other factors. These factors are related to the source or exposure context ( e.g., frequency, predictability, duty cycle, duration of the exposure, signal-to-noise ratio, distance to the source), the environment ( e.g., bathymetry, other noises in the area, predators in the area), and the receiving animals (hearing, motivation, experience, demography, life stage, depth) and can be difficult to predict ( e.g., Southall et al., 2007; Ellison et al., 2012). Based on available science and the practical need to use a threshold based on a predictable, measurable metric for most activities, NMFS typically uses a generalized acoustic threshold based on the received level to estimate the onset of behavioral harassment. NMFS generally predicts that marine mammals are likely to be behaviorally harassed in a manner considered to be Level B harassment when exposed to underwater anthropogenic noise above root-mean-squared sound pressure levels (RMS SPL) of 120 dB re 1 μPa for continuous ( e.g., vibratory pile driving, drilling) and above RMS SPL 160 dB re 1 μPa for non-explosive impulsive ( e.g., seismic airguns) or intermittent ( e.g., scientific sonar) sources. Level B harassment take estimates based on these behavioral harassment thresholds potentially include TTS, as, in most cases, TTS likely occurs at distances from the source less than those at which behavioral harassment may occur. TTS of sufficient degree can manifest as behavioral harassment and reduced hearing sensitivity, and the potential reduction in opportunities to detect important signals (conspecific communication, predators, prey) may result in behavior patterns that would not otherwise occur.

The Navy's proposed activities for projects at NBPL and NBSD include continuous (vibratory pile driving) and impulsive (impact pile driving) sources. As previously discussed, the Navy has measured and reported background noise in San Diego Bay (NAVFAC SW, 2020) above 120 dB re 1 μPa. Therefore, the RMS SPL thresholds of 129.6 dB and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable to the NBPL Project, and the thresholds of 126 dB and 160 dB re 1 μPa are applicable to the NBSD Project.

NMFS' Updated Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 3.0) (NMFS, 2024) identifies dual criteria to assess AUD INJ (Level A harassment) to five different underwater marine mammal groups (based on hearing sensitivity) as a result of exposure to noise from two different types of sources (impulsive or non-impulsive). It includes updated thresholds and updated weighting functions for each hearing group, provided in table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used to develop the criteria are described in NMFS' 2024 Updated Technical Guidance, available at: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools.

Here, we describe the operational and environmental parameters of the activity used to estimate the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and the transmission loss coefficient.

The sound field in the project areas is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the proposed project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project ( i.e., vibratory pile removal, vibratory pile driving, and impact pile driving). The source levels assumed for both removal and installation activities are based on reviews of measurements of piles of the same or similar types and dimensions available in the scientific literature and from similar coastal construction projects. The source level for the piles and activities ( i.e., installation or removal) at both NBPL and NBSD is presented in table 5.

Transmission loss (TL) is the decrease in acoustic intensity as an acoustic pressure wave propagates out from a source. TL parameters vary with frequency, temperature, sea conditions, current, source and receiver depth, water depth, water chemistry, bottom composition, and topography. The general formula for underwater TL is:

This formula neglects loss due to scattering and absorption, which is assumed to be zero here. The degree to which underwater sound propagates away from a sound source depends on various factors, most notably the water bathymetry and the presence or absence of reflective or absorptive conditions, including in-water structures and sediments. Spherical spreading occurs in a perfectly unobstructed (free-field) environment not limited by depth or water surface, resulting in a 6 dB reduction in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (20*log[range]). Cylindrical spreading occurs in an environment in which sound propagation is bounded by the water surface and sea bottom, resulting in a reduction of 3 dB in sound level for each doubling of distance from the source (10*log[range]). A practical spreading value of 15 is often used in shallow-water coastal conditions, such as those found in the NBPL and NBSD projects. In these environments, sound waves repeatedly reflect off the surface and bottom, reflecting an expected propagation environment between spherical and cylindrical spreading-loss conditions. Therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to calculate distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds.

Assuming practicable spreading and other assumptions regarding the source characteristics and operational logistics ( e.g., source level, number of strikes per pile, number of piles per day), the Navy calculated distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds and associated ensonified areas. Because an ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict given the accounting for a cumulative energy component that changes over time, to assist applicants in assessing the potential for Level A harassment without the need for complex modeling, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the 2024 Updated Technical Guidance (see https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/national/marine-mammal-protection/marine-mammal-acoustic-technical-guidance-other-acoustic-tools ). This relatively simple tool can be used to calculate a Level A harassment isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence data to predict the amount of take that may occur incidental to an activity. We note that, because of some of the assumptions in the methods underlying this spreadsheet tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleths would typically be overestimates, which may lead to an overestimate of potential exposures from Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers a practical alternative for estimating isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are unavailable or are impractical. For stationary sources such as impact or vibratory pile driving and removal, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity within 24 hours, it would be expected to incur AUD INJ. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool are contained within table 6.

The meeting will begin with Introductions of Members, Adoption of Agenda, and Scope of Work. The Committee will review and discuss Ecosystem and climate readiness project updates, including Inflation Reduction Act projects and the Gulf Ecosystem Status Report. The Committee will discuss the draft Gulf Fishery Ecosystem Plan (FEP), including a presentation, draft document, and background materials.

Lastly, the committee will receive Public Comment and discuss any Other Business items.

The meeting will also be broadcast via webinar. You may register for the webinar by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the Technical Committee meeting on the calendar. The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on www.gulfcouncil.org as they become available.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Technical Committee for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Technical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The meeting will begin with Introductions and Adoption of Agenda, review and approval of Meeting Minutes from the January 2026 SSC webinar and Scope of Work.

The Standing and Shrimp SSCs will then review Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 87 stock assessments of Gulf Penaeid Shrimp and Shrimp Bycatch Methodology Working Group Recommendations for Finfish Species, including presentations, background materials and SSC discussions.

Public comments will be heard at the end of the day, if any.

The Standing SSC will reassemble to review Management Strategy Evaluations (MSE) of Marine Recreation Information Program-Fishing Effort Survey (MRIP-FES) Recalibrations, Greater Amberjack Interim Analysis and Catch Advice, and Southeast Fishery Science Center (SEFSC) Stakeholder Participatory Workshops, including presentations, background materials and SSC discussions.

The SSC will also receive presentations on research about Gray Triggerfish discard mortality and in-season management of a recreational fishery, including background materials and SSC discussions.

Public comments will be heard at the end of the day, if any.

The Standing SSC will discuss Social and Economic Effects of Mid-year IFQ Quota Modifications, including a presentation and SSC discussion. The SSC will also review a check-in on SEDAR 100: Gulf Gray Triggerfish Stock Assessment and hold a discussion on the progress on MRIP Pilot Studies, including presentations and SSC Discussion.

Public comments, if any, will be heard at the end of the day followed by the review of any Other Business items.

The meeting will also be broadcast via webinar. You may register to listen in only by visiting www.gulfcouncil.org and clicking on the SSC meeting on the calendar.

The Agenda is subject to change, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on www.gulfcouncil.org as they become available.

Although other non-emergency issues not on the agenda may come before the Scientific and Statistical Committees for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Actions of the Scientific and Statistical Committee will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the agenda and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take-action to address the emergency.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

Status: The meeting will be open to public participation with a public comment period on Tuesday, February 24, 2026 at 3:10 p.m. (EST). The Board expects that public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted verbal or written statements. In general, each individual or group making a verbal presentation will be limited to a total time of three (3) minutes. Written comments should be received by Ms. Susan Holmes by Tuesday, February 17, 2026 to provide sufficient time for Board review. Written comments received after the deadline will be distributed to the Board, but may not be reviewed prior to the meeting date.

Special Accommodations: The Board meeting is virtually accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Ms. Susan Holmes by Tuesday, February 17, 2026.

The Board, which consists of a balanced representation from academia, industry, state government and citizens groups, was established in 1976 by Section 209 of the Sea Grant Improvement Act (Public Law 94-461, 33 U.S.C. 1128). The Board advises the Secretary of Commerce and the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program with respect to operations under the Act, and such other matters as the Secretary refers to them for review and advice.

Matters To Be Considered: Board members will discuss and vote on the selection of new subcommittee membership, discuss the State of Sea Grant interim report to Congress, discuss updates from Sea Grant Network Groups, and other topics that need Board feedback: https://seagrant.noaa.gov/About/Advisory-Board.

The Legislative Committee agenda will include a review of recently introduced Federal legislation regarding fisheries management, and an evaluation of potential impacts of legislation on the Council's ability to perform the functions specified in its grant, fulfill its responsibilities under the Magnuson-Stevens Act, or affect the Council's ability to conserve and manage marine resources and resource users. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3125 prior to the meeting, along with meeting materials.

You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at: https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3125. For technical support please contact our administrative staff, email: support@npfmc.org.

Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically through the links at https://meetings.npfmc.org/Meeting/Details/3125. The written comment period closes at 5 p.m. Alaska Time on Sunday, March 1, 2026.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

A public comment period will be provided in the agenda. The order in which agenda items are addressed may change. The meeting will run as late as necessary to complete scheduled business.

These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Kitty M. Simonds, (808) 522-8220 (voice) or (808) 522-8226 (fax), at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.

Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Among the exceptions is section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq. ) which directs the Secretary of Commerce (as delegated to NMFS) to allow, upon request, the incidental, but not intentional, taking by harassment of small numbers of marine mammals by U.S. citizens who engage in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region if certain findings are made and the public has an opportunity to comment on the proposed IHA.

Specifically, NMFS will issue an IHA if it finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least [practicable] adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definitions of key terms, such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact,” can be found in the MMPA and the NMFS' implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).

On December 19, 2025, a notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to OMAO for take of marine mammals incidental to the research vessel relocation project at NAVSTA Newport, Rhode Island was published in the Federal Register (90 FR 59507). In that notice, NMFS indicated the estimated numbers, type, and methods of incidental take proposed for each species or stock, as well as the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures that would be required should the IHA be issued. The Federal Register notice also included analysis to support NMFS' preliminary conclusions and determinations that the IHA, if issued, would satisfy the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA for issuance of the IHA. The Federal Register notice included web links to a draft IHA for review, as well as other supporting documents.

No comments were received during the public comment period. There are no changes to the specified activity, the species taken, the proposed numbers, type, or methods of take, or the mitigation, monitoring, or reporting measures in the proposed IHA notice. No new information that would change any of the preliminary analyses, conclusions, or determinations in the proposed IHA notice has become available since that notice was published, and therefore, the preliminary analyses, conclusions, and determinations included in the proposed IHA are considered final.

To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. ) and NAO 216-6A, NMFS must review our proposed action ( i.e., the issuance of an IHA) with respect to potential impacts on the human environment.

This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq. ) requires that each Federal agency ensures that any action it authorizes, funds, or carries out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat. To ensure ESA compliance for the issuance of IHAs, NMFS consults internally whenever we propose to authorize take for endangered or threatened species.

No incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.

Accordingly, consistent with the requirements of section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS has issued an IHA to OMAO for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to the research vessel relocation project at NAVSTA Newport, Rhode Island.

This notice informs the public that DFC will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.

Title of Collection: Request for SAM Assistance.

Type of Review: New information collection.

Agency Form Number: DFC-020.

OMB Form Number: Not assigned, new information collection. 3015-XXXX.

Frequency: Once per investor per project.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit; not-for-profit institutions; individuals.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Number of Respondents: 100.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 1.0 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 100 hours.

Abstract: DFC will use the Request for SAM Assistance form to help potential investors obtain an active SAM.gov registration so that they can conduct business with DFC. The collection is limited to information necessary for assistance with registration.

This notice informs the public that DFC will submit to OMB a request for approval of the following information collection.

Title of Collection: Economic Questionnaire.

Type of Review: Extension without change of a currently approved information collection.

Agency Form Number: DFC-012.

OMB Form Number: 3015-0001.

Frequency: Per request of investor.

Affected Public: Business or other for-profit institutions.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Number of Respondents: 20.

Estimated Time per Respondent: 0.5 hours.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 10 hours.

Abstract: The DFC Economic Questionnaire is provided to DFC investors to complete information for planned revenues and exports of goods. The resulting answers determine the sector of analysis to assess risk to the U.S. economy of DFC support for a project.

The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.

Title of Collection: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS 2027) Main Study International Questionnaire.

OMB Control Number: 1850-0695.

Type of Review: A revision of a currently approved ICR.

Respondents/Affected Public: Individuals; State, Local, and Tribal Governments.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Responses: 19,236.

Total Estimated Number of Annual Burden Hours: 8,047.

Abstract: The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), within the U.S. Department of Education (ED), is an international assessment of fourth and eighth grade students' achievement in mathematics and science. Since its inception in 1995, TIMSS has continued to assess students every 4 years. The next TIMSS assessment, TIMSS 2027, will be the ninth iteration of the study. The United States will participate in TIMSS 2027 to continue to monitor the progress of its students compared to that of other nations and to provide data on factors that may influence student achievement.

TIMSS is led by the International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement (IEA), an international collective of research organizations and government agencies that create the frameworks used to develop the assessment, the survey instruments, and the study timeline. IEA decides and agrees upon a common set of standards, procedures, and timelines for collecting and reporting data, all of which must be followed by all participating countries. As a result, TIMSS can provide a reliable and comparable measure of student skills in participating countries. In the U.S., NCES conducts this study in collaboration with the IEA and contractors to ensure proper implementation of the study and adoption of practices in adherence to the IEA's standards. Participation in TIMSS is consistent with NCES's mandate of acquiring and disseminating data on educational activities and student achievement in the United States compared with foreign nations [The Educational Sciences Reform Act of 2002 (ESRA 2002, 20 U.S.C. 9543)].

Because TIMSS is a collaborative effort among many parties, the United States must adhere to the international schedule set forth by the IEA, including the availability of final field test and main study plans as well as draft and final questionnaires. Recruitment activities for the main study are expected to begin in May 2026, with the data collection activities currently scheduled to begin in March 2027.

This package solicits 30 days of public comment and requests OMB approval for the final international version of the main study questionnaires. Adaptation activities to fit the questionnaire text into the U.S. education context are currently underway. The U.S. questionnaires for the main study will be submitted via non-substantive change request in January 2027.

Note: To be eligible for a Formula Grant, all applicants must submit all required documentation described under Content and Form of Application Submission in section IV of this notice before the EASIE Part I and Part II transmittal deadlines.

Purpose of Program: The Formula Grants program provides support to LEAs and Indian Tribes in developing elementary school and secondary school programs for all Indian students. Program funding must be used to support comprehensive programs that are designed to meet cultural, language, and academic needs of Indian students and ensure they meet State academic standards. LEAs must develop projects with the participation and written approval of an Indian Parent Committee (IPC) and develop meaningful consultation and ongoing collaboration with nearby Indian Tribes.

Assistance Listing Number (ALN): 84.060A.

OMB Control Number: 1810-002.

Table 1 outlines the required assurances for each proposed project. These assurances must be developed through open consultation and active participation with stakeholders, include written approval from the Indian Parent Committee, undergo review by the State Education Agency. Additionally, Table 1 identifies the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) that are required to meaningful collaborate with Tribes and those who also must consult with Tribes.

Integration of Services Authorized: As authorized under ESEA section 6116, the Secretary will, upon receipt of an acceptable plan for the integration of education and related services, and in cooperation with Federal agencies, authorize the entity receiving the funds under this program to consolidate all Federal funds that are to be used exclusively for Indian students. Instructions for submitting an integration of education and related services plan are described under Application and Submission Information in section IV of this notice.

Definitions: The following definitions apply to this application period. The definition of “Indian” is from ESEA section 6151(3). The definition of “Indian Community-Based Organization” is from ESEA section 6112(d)(3).

Indian means an individual who is:

(1) a member of an Indian Tribe or band, as membership is defined by the Tribe or band, including—

(a) any Tribe or band terminated since 1940; and

(b) any tribe or band recognized by the State in which the tribe or band resides;

(2) a descendant, in the first or second degree, of an individual described in subparagraph (a);

(3) considered by the Secretary of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose;

(4) an Eskimo, Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or

(5) a member of an organized Indian group that received a grant under the Indian Education Act of 1988 as in effect the day preceding the date of enactment of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994.

Indian Community-Based Organization (ICBO) means any organization that—

(1) is composed primarily of Indian parents, family members, and community members, Tribal government education officials, and Tribal members, from a specific community;

(2) assists in the social, cultural, and educational development of Indians in such community;

(3) meets the unique cultural, language, and academic needs of Indian students; and

(4) demonstrates organizational and administrative capacity to manage the grant.

Statutory Hiring Preference: All formula grants are subject to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA), section 7(b) of ISDEAA (25 U.S.C. 5307(b)) requires any contract, subcontract, or grant for the benefit of Indians, shall to the greatest extent feasible—

(1) give preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of such contracts or grants to Indians; and

(2) give preference in the award of subcontracts in connection with the administration of such contracts or grants to Indian Organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)).

For purposes of this requirement, “Indian” is defined under 25 U.S.C. 1452(b).

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7421, et seq.

Note: Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.

Applicable Regulations: (a) The Education Department General Administrative Regulations in 34 CFR parts 75, 77, 81, 82, 84, 97, 98, and 99. (b) The Office of Management and Budget Guidelines to Agencies on Governmentwide Debarment and Suspension (Non-procurement) in 2 CFR part 180, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3485. (c) The Guidance for Federal Financial Assistance in 2 CFR part 200, as adopted and amended as regulations of the Department in 2 CFR part 3474.

Type of Award: Formula grants.

Estimated Available Funds: The Administration requested $110,381,000 for the Formula Grants program for FY 2026. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: $4,000 to $2,400,000.

Estimated Average Size of Awards: $85,000.

Estimated Number of Awards: 1,250.

Note: The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.

Project Period: 12 months.

1. Eligible Applicants: Entities eligible under this program include certain LEAs (including charter schools authorized as LEAs under State law), BIE-funded schools, Tribes and Tribal organizations, ICBOs, and consortia of two or more eligible entities, as prescribed by ESEA sections 6112-6113. See Table 2 for detailed eligibility requirements by entity type. Applicants can confirm their eligibility in Part I of the EASIE application.

2. a. Cost Sharing or Matching: This program does not require cost sharing or matching.

b. Supplement Not Supplant: ESEA section 6114(c)(1) requires an LEA to use these grant funds only to supplement the funds that, in the absence of these Federal funds, such agency would make available for services described in this application, and not to supplant such funds.

c. Indirect Cost Rate Information: This program uses a restricted indirect cost rate. For more information regarding restricted indirect costs, or to obtain a negotiated restricted indirect cost rate, please see: https://www.ed.gov/about/ed-offices/ofo/ocfos-financial-improvement-post-audit-operations.

d. Administrative Cost Limitation: Under ESEA section 6115(d), no more than five percent of funds awarded for a grant under this program may be used for administrative purposes. Note that, since fiscal year 2020, Congress has included language in appropriations acts to specify that the statutory 5 percent limit does not include indirect costs. In the event such language is not included in the FY 2026 appropriations act, the Department will work with successful applicants to make budget adjustments to align with administrative cost restrictions, if necessary.

1. How to Request an Application Package: You can obtain an entity-specific link for EASIE by contacting PSC listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Upon request to the program contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

2. Content and Form of Application Submission: Application requirements such as agreements, forms, and technical assistance resources are located on the EASIE Communities of Practice website at https://easie.communities.ed.gov/.

Note: The Department will provide support to applicants with accessing, navigating, and entering data and submitting their responses into https://www.connect.gov/. Prior to the opening of EASIE Part I, this documentation will be announced and posted on the EASIE Communities of Practice website at: https://easie.communities.ed.gov/.

Applicants will be provided an entity-specific link (also known as a token) to access EASIE via https://www.connect.gov/. Only individuals that are registered as the current Point of Contact (POC), Project Director (PD), or Authorized Official Representative (AOR) will receive the entity-specific link to access the application for EASIE Parts I and II.

Supplementary Documentation: EASIE requires submission of the following supplementary documentation in electronic Portable Document Format (PDF):

(1) Applicants that are applying as Indian Tribes, IOs, or ICBOs must submit the “Applying in Lieu of the LEA” agreement form with their application to verify their eligibility no later than the EASIE Part I close date. The evidence of eligibility forms are available on the EASIE Communities of Practice website ( https://easie.communities.ed.gov/ ) as downloadable documents.

(2) Consortia applicants, specifically the lead applicant, must submit a consortium agreement no later than the EASIE Part I close date.

(3) LEA applicants, including LEA consortia applicants, must submit an Indian Parent Committee Approval form no later than the EASIE Part II close date.

3. Submission Dates and Times:

EASIE transmittal deadlines:

Part I Opens: February 2, 2026.

Part I Closes: March 6, 2026, 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time.

Part II Opens: March 30, 2026.

Part II Closes: May 11, 2026, 11:59 p.m., Eastern Time.

For information about how to submit your application, please refer to Other Submission Requirements in section IV of this notice. Individuals with disabilities who need accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . If the Department provides accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability in connection with the application process, the individual's application remains subject to all other requirements and limitations in this notice.

4. Intergovernmental Review: This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

5. Unique Entity Identification (UEI) Number, Taxpayer Identification Number, and System for Award Management: To do business with the Department, you must—

a. Have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);

b. Register both your UEI number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;

c. Provide your UEI number and TIN on your SAM application; and

d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.

You can obtain a UEI number from SAM.gov at the following website: https://sam.gov/. A UEI number can be created within one to two business days.

If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow two to five weeks for your TIN to become active.

The SAM registration process can take approximately seven business days but may take upwards of several weeks. Applicants should allow sufficient time to obtain and register your UEI number and TIN.

If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your UEI number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take three or more business days.

Information about SAM is available at https://sam.gov/. To further assist you with obtaining and registering your UEI number and TIN in SAM or updating your existing SAM account, we have prepared a SAM.gov Tip Sheet, which you can find here: https://sam.gov/content/duns-uei.

Other Submission Requirements:

Electronic Submission of Applications

EASIE is an electronic application within Connect.gov that users access via an entity-specific link or “token” is divided into two parts: EASIE Part I (Indian Student Count) and EASIE Part II (Project Design and Budget). All applicants must document eligible Indian students during the count period and ensure that all individual data collected shall be protected and only aggregate data shall be reported to the Department. See Table 3 and Table 4 for more information about the type of information that is required in EASIE Part I and EASIE Part II, respectively.

In EASIE Part II, all applicants will be prompted to select the type of program being submitted: regular formula grant project, a schoolwide program, or integration of services. Applicants must design a comprehensive program as outlined in Table 4 below:

Registration for Formula Grant EASIE: All applicants interested in submitting a Formula Grant application must register for EASIE. Prior to the opening of EASIE Part I, PSC will send a broadcast to prior year grantees and new prospective applicants that have contacted PSC and registered for EASIE. All recipients who receive PSC's broadcast will be asked to complete their intent to apply for the upcoming application period in the EASIE Portal. All applicants will be provided the opportunity to confirm if any updates to their registration information are necessary, or if they would like to decline registration. Entities that do not have an active registration or are new applicants should contact the PSC listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT to register any time before the EASIE Part I application transmittal deadline. Registration does not serve as the entity's grant application. For assistance registering, contact the PSC listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT .

Certification for Formula Grant EASIE: The Authorized Official Representative (AOR) must certify EASIE Parts I and II by the respective deadlines. Each applicant should identify at least three system users, one for each of the following: Project Director, AOR, and another party (such as a Budget Director) designated to answer questions in the event the project director is unavailable. The certification process ensures that the information in the application is true, reliable, and valid. An applicant that provides a false statement in the application is subject to penalties under the False Claims Act, 18 U.S.C. 1001.

1. Risk Assessment and Specific Conditions: Consistent with 2 CFR 200.206, before awarding grants under this program the Department conducts a review of the risks posed by applicants. Under 2 CFR 200.208, the Secretary may impose specific conditions and, under 2 CFR 3474.10, in appropriate circumstances, high-risk conditions on a grant if the applicant or grantee is not financially stable; has a history of unsatisfactory performance; has a financial or other management system that does not meet the standards in 2 CFR part 200, subpart D; has not fulfilled the conditions of a prior grant; or is otherwise not responsible.

2. Administrative and National Policy Requirements: We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice.

We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of a grant in the Applicable Regulations section of this notice and include these and other specific conditions in the Grant Award Notification (GAN). The GAN also incorporates your approved application as part of your binding commitments under the grant.

3. Reporting: (a) If you apply for a grant under this program, you must ensure that you have in place the necessary processes and systems to comply with the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 170 should you receive funding. This does not apply if you have an exception under 2 CFR 170.110(b).

(b) You must submit a final annual performance report (APR) using EASIE, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary, within 120 days after the close of the grant year. Grantees will be able to access the APR via EASIE prior to the system being open to users. Grantees will receive an email from the PSC identifying the date that the APR will be available to grantees and the deadline for its transmission.

4. Performance Measures: For the purposes of Department reporting under 34 CFR 75.110, the Secretary has established the following key performance measures for assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Formula Grants program: (1) the percentage of AIAN students in grades four and eight who score at or above the basic level in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP); (2) the percentage of AIAN students in grades four and eight who score at or above the basic level in mathematics on the NAEP; (3) the percentage of Indian students in grades three through eight meeting State achievement standards by scoring at or above the proficient level in reading and mathematics on State assessments; (4) the difference between the percentage of AIAN students in grades three through eight at or above the proficient level in reading and mathematics on State assessments and the percentage of all students scoring at those levels; and (5) the percentage of Indian students who graduate from high school as measured by the 4 year adjusted cohort graduation rate. The Department will report data for these measures from administrative data sources; grantees do not need to report data for these measures.

5. Integrity and Performance System: If you receive an award under this grant program that over the course of the project period may exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (currently $250,000), under 2 CFR 200.206(a)(2) we must make a judgment about your integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards—that is, the risk posed by you as an applicant—before we make an award. In doing so, we must consider any information about you that is in the integrity and performance system (currently referred to as the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)), accessible through https://sam.gov/. You may review and comment on any information about yourself that a Federal agency previously entered and that is currently in FAPIIS.

Please note that if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.

Accessible Format: On request to the PSC listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT , individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at www.govinfo.gov. At this site, you can view this document, as well as other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or PDF. To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

You may also access Department documents published in the Federal Register by using the article search feature at: www.federalregister.gov.

Assistance Listing Number: 84.358A.

OMB Control Number: 1810-0646.

Type of Award: Formula grant.

Available Funds: The President's FY 2026 budget proposed consolidating SRSA into a new, Simplified Funding Program. We are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.

Estimated Range of Awards: $100-$80,000.

Note: The amount of an LEA's award depends on the number and makeup of eligible LEAs that complete the SRSA application, and the amount Congress appropriates for the program. Some eligible LEAs may receive an SRSA allocation of $0 due to the statutory funding formula and, in that case, will not be invited to submit an application.

Estimated Number of Awards: 4,300.

Eligibility: For FY 2026, an LEA (including a public charter school that meets the definition of LEA in section 8101(30) of the ESEA) is eligible for an award under the SRSA program if it meets both of the criteria below:

(a) The total number of students in average daily attendance at all of the schools served by the LEA is fewer than 600, or each county in which a school served by the LEA is located has a total population density of fewer than 10 persons per square mile; and

(b) All of the schools served by the LEA are designated with a school locale code of 41, 42, or 43 by the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), or the Secretary has determined, based on a demonstration by the LEA and concurrence of the State educational agency, that the LEA is located in an area defined as rural by a governmental agency of the State.

The Department provides an eligibility spreadsheet listing each LEA eligible to apply for FY 2026 SRSA funds. The spreadsheet will be available on the Department's website at: https://www.ed.gov/grants-and-programs/formula-grants/rural-and-insular-areas/small-rural-school-achievement-program#srsa-eligibility.

If an LEA on the Department's spreadsheet of LEAs eligible to apply for an FY 2026 SRSA award will close prior to the 2026-2027 school year, that LEA is not eligible to receive an FY 2026 SRSA award and should not apply.

Note: The “Choice of Participation” provision under section 5225 of the ESEA gives an LEA eligible for both SRSA and the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program, which is authorized under title V, part B, subpart 2 of the ESEA, the option to participate in either the SRSA program or the RLIS program. 20 U.S.C. 7351d. An LEA eligible for both SRSA and RLIS is henceforth referred to as a “dual-eligible LEA.” The Department will consider a dual-eligible LEA's SRSA application as the LEA's indication that it chooses to receive SRSA funds instead of RLIS funds.

Eligible LEAs Required to Submit an Application

Each LEA interested in and eligible to receive an SRSA award must submit an SRSA application regardless of whether the LEA received an award or submitted an application in a previous year. For example, if a rural community has two distinct LEAs—one composed of its elementary school(s) and one composed of its high school(s)—each distinct LEA must submit its own SRSA application. This requirement applies to all eligible LEAs, including each dual-eligible LEA that chooses to participate in the SRSA program instead of the RLIS program and each SRSA-eligible LEA that is a member of an educational service agency (ESA) that does not receive SRSA funds on the LEA's behalf. In the case of an SRSA-eligible LEA that is a member of an SRSA-eligible ESA, the LEA and ESA must coordinate directly with each other to determine which entity will submit an SRSA application on the LEA's behalf, as both entities may not apply for or receive SRSA funds for the LEA.

As required by 2 CFR part 25, Appendix A, entities receiving funds from the Federal government, including SRSA-eligible LEAs that apply for an SRSA award, must maintain current entity information in the System for Award Management (SAM). SAM is the Federal government's primary registrant database and is managed by the General Services Administration, not the Department. The UEI, a 12-character alphanumeric code, is the primary means of entity identification for Federal awards. An LEA without a UEI may not receive an SRSA award until it has obtained and registered a UEI.

The Department will send an email with a unique application link to each LEA that is eligible and estimated to receive a positive allocation ( i.e., an estimated amount greater than $0.00) for an FY 2026 SRSA grant award. The email will include detailed instructions for completing the electronic application. The application is estimated to take 30 minutes to complete.

An eligible LEA must submit an electronic application via Connect.gov to be assured of receiving an FY 2026 SRSA grant award. The Department may consider applications submitted after the deadline to the extent practicable and contingent upon the availability of funding.

If you are unable to submit an application by the due date, because of technical issues, contact the Department by emailing reap@ed.gov within five business days of the application deadline and provide an explanation of the technical problem you experienced. The late application will be accepted as having met the deadline if the Department can confirm that a technical issue occurred with the Connect.gov system that affected your ability to submit the application by the deadline. As noted above, if you submit the application after the deadline and the late submission is not due to a technical issue about which you have notified the Department, the Department may consider your application to the extent practicable and contingent upon the availability of funding.

Accessible Format: Upon request to the REAP Group Leader (using the email or phone number provided in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above), individuals with disabilities can obtain this document and a copy of the application package in an accessible format. The Department will provide the requestor with an accessible format that may include Rich Text Format (RTF) or text format (txt), a thumb drive, an MP3 file, braille, large print, audiotape, compact disc, or other accessible format.

Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this document is the document published in the Federal Register . You may access the official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations at https://www.govinfo.gov/. At this site you can view this document, as well as all other Department documents published in the Federal Register , in text or Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the site.

Program Authority: Sections 5211-5212 of the ESEA, 20 U.S.C. 7345-7345a.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1081.

Title: Sections 1.2002, 54.201, 54.202, 54.205, Telecommunications Carriers Eligible for Universal Service Support.

Form Number: N/A.

Type of Review: Revision of a currently approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for-profit.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 24 respondents; 28 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 1-40 hours.

Obligation to Respond: Required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority is contained in sections 201(b), 214(e)(6), and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 201(b), 214(e)(6), 303(r).

Frequency of Response: One-time reporting requirement.

Total Annual Burden: 808 hours.

Total Annual Cost: No cost.

Needs and Uses: Section 254(e) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (Act) provides that “only an ETC designated under section 214(e) shall be eligible to receive specific Federal universal service support.”

Section 214(e)(2) of the Act gives state commissions the primary responsibility for performing ETC designations.

Section 214(e)(6) vests the Commission with authority to designate as an ETC “a common carrier providing telephone exchange service and exchange access that is not subject to the jurisdiction of a State commission.”

Section 214(e)(4) provides that state commissions, in a case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (2) of this section, or the Commission, in a case of a common carrier designated under paragraph (6) of this section, “shall permit” an ETC to relinquish its designation “in any area served by more than one” ETC so long as “the remaining [ETCs] ensure that all customers served by the relinquishing carrier will continue to be served,” and the relinquishing carrier provides “sufficient notice to permit the purchase or construction of adequate facilities by any remaining eligible telecommunications carrier.” The ETC must provide advance notice to the state commission or the Commission.

The Commission's rules for ETC designation require the collection of information specified below, except where the Commission has waived information collection requirements when enforcing them would not serve the public interest.

On October 20, 2023, the Commission adopted the Connect America Fund et al., WC Docket No. 10-90 et al. WT Docket No. 10-208, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Report and Order, FCC 23-87 (Oct. 20, 2023) ( Administrative Order ). In the Administrative Order, the Commission modified, in relevant part, section 205 of the Commission's rules, to require an ETC that intends to relinquish its ETC designation to provide: (1) advance notice to the state commission and to the Commission of such intention to relinquish, and (2) notice to the Commission of the state authority's decision to permit or deny such relinquishment, within 10 days of its decision. These filings must be submitted regardless of whether the ETC is currently receiving federal support. The Commission identified its statutory authority to impose these requirements through section 254 of the Act and as reasonably ancillary thereto.

The Commission notes that information collections associated with the Lifeline-only ETC designations and relinquishments are reflected in OMB Control No. 3060-0819.

This information collection addresses the burdens associated with these requirements.

OMB Control Number: 3060-1270.

Title: Protecting National Security Through FCC Programs.

Form Number: FCC Form 5640.

Type of Review: Extension of a currently-approved collection.

Respondents: Business or other for profit entities.

Number of Respondents and Responses: 3,500 respondents; 6,584 responses.

Estimated Time per Response: 0.5-12 hours.

Frequency of Response: Annual, semiannual, and recordkeeping requirements.

Obligation to Respond: Mandatory and required to obtain or retain benefits. Statutory authority for this information collection is contained in 47 U.S.C. 1603-1604.

Total Annual Burden: 20,236 hours.

Total Annual Cost: $472,500.

Needs and Uses: The Communications Act of 1934, as amended, requires the “preservation and advancement of universal service.” 47 U.S.C. 254(b). The information collection requirements reported under this collection are the result of the Commission's actions to promote the Act's universal service goals.

On November 22, 2019, the Commission adopted the Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Report and Order, Order, and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 34 FCC Rcd 11423 (2019) ( Report and Order ). The Report and Order prohibits future use of Universal Service Fund (USF) monies to purchase, maintain, improve, modify, obtain, or otherwise support any equipment or services produced or provided by a company that poses a national security threat to the integrity of communications networks or the communications supply chain.

On March 12, 2020, the President signed into law the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), Public Law 116-124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 1601-1609 ), which, among other measures, directs the FCC to establish the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program). This program is intended to provide funding to providers of advanced communications service for the removal, replacement and disposal of certain communications equipment and services that poses an unacceptable national security risk ( i.e., covered equipment and services) from their networks. The Commission has designated two entities—Huawei Technologies Company (Huawei) and ZTE Corporation (ZTE), along with their affiliates, subsidiaries, and parents—as covered companies posing such a national security threat. See Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs—Huawei Designation, PS Docket No. 19-351, Memorandum Opinion and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14435 (2020); Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs—ZTE Designation, PS Docket No. 19-352, Memorandum Opinion and Order, DA 20-1399 (PSHSB rel. Nov. 24, 2020).

On December 10, 2020, the Commission adopted the Second Report and Order implementing the Secure Networks Act, which contained new information collection requirements. See Protecting Against National Security Threats to the Communications Supply Chain Through FCC Programs, WC Docket No. 18-89, Second Report and Order, 35 FCC Rcd 14284 (2020) ( Second Report and Order ). These requirements allow the Commission to receive, review and make eligibility determinations and funding decisions on applications to participate in the Reimbursement Program that are filed by certain providers of advanced communications service. These information collection requirements also assist the Commission in processing funding disbursement requests and in monitoring and furthering compliance with applicable program requirements to protect against waste, fraud, and abuse. Participation in the Reimbursement Program is voluntary, but compliance with the information collection requirements is required to obtain Reimbursement Program support.

On August 3, 2021, the Wireline Competition Bureau (Bureau) released a Public Notice adopting procedures for filing and processing applications submitted for the Reimbursement Program. These procedures largely tracked the procedural rules previously adopted by the Commission in the Second Report and Order, but also adopted a new requirement that Reimbursement Program participants notify the Commission of changes in ownership, to ensure accurate information is on file for participants and to help protect the Reimbursement Program against waste, fraud, and abuse.

In 2023, the Bureau updated the submission requirements for FCC Form 5640 by deleting an existing question and adding a new one asking program participants to describe in detail how they have spent Reimbursement Program funds, which allowed the Bureau to satisfy its statutory obligations to collect information about how Reimbursement Program funds have been spent, including detailed accounting of the covered communications equipment and services permanently removed and disposed of, and the replacement equipment or services purchased, rented, leased, or otherwise obtained using Reimbursement Program funds. The Bureau determined that FCC Form 5640 required this revision in order to elicit the information necessary for the Bureau to better satisfy its statutory obligations.

The Patient Safety Act, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to 299b-26, and the related Patient Safety Rule, 42 CFR part 3, published in the Federal Register on November 21, 2008 (73 FR 70732-70814), establish a framework by which individuals and entities that meet the definition of provider in the Patient Safety Rule may voluntarily report information to PSOs listed by AHRQ, on a privileged and confidential basis, for the aggregation and analysis of patient safety work product.

The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.

HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of PSOs.

AHRQ has accepted a notification of proposed voluntary relinquishment from the Vizient TM PSO to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the Vizient TM PSO, PSO number P0007, was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on January 7, 2026.

Vizient TM PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.

More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at http://www.pso.ahrq.gov.

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice that summarizes the following proposed collection(s) of information for public comment.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Revision with change of a currently approved collection; Title of Information Collection: Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) for Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP); Use: Medicare Advantage organizations (MAO) and Prescription Drug Plans (PDP) are required to submit an actuarial pricing “bid” for each plan offered to Medicare beneficiaries for approval by CMS. The MAOs and PDPs use the Bid Pricing Tool (BPT) software to develop their actuarial pricing bid. The competitive bidding process defined by the “The Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act” (MMA) applies to both the MA and Part D programs. It is an annual process that encompasses the release of the MA rate book in April, the bid's that plans submit to CMS in June, and the release of the Part D and RPPO benchmarks, which typically occurs in August. Form Number: CMS-10142 (OMB control number: 0938-0944); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private Sector, Business or other for profits, and Not for profits institutions; Number of Respondents: 460; Total Annual Responses: 11,700; Total Annual Hours: 406,000. (For questions regarding this collection contact Rachel Shevland at 410-786-3026 or Rachel.shevland@cms.hhs.gov. )

2. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement without change of a previously approved information collection; Title of Information Collection: Complaints Submission Process under the No Surprises Act; Use: Enacted on December 27, 2020, the No Surprises Act, which was enacted as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA), amended the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (Code). The No Surprise Act implements provisions that protect individuals from surprise medical bills for emergency services, air ambulance services furnished by nonparticipating providers, and non-emergency services furnished by nonparticipating providers at participating facilities in certain circumstances. Additionally, the No Surprises Act sets forth a complaints processes with respect to potential violations of balance billing requirements set forth in the No Surprises Act.

The No Surprises Act directs the Departments to establish a process to receive complaints regarding violations of the application of QPA requirements by group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group or individual health coverage. The No Surprises Act also directs HHS to establish a process to receive consumer complaints regarding violations by health care providers, facilities, and providers of air ambulance services regarding balance billing requirements and to respond to such complaints within 60 days.

CMS will request information from non-federal governmental plans and issuers, health care providers, facilities, providers of air ambulance services, and individuals to review and process a complaint for potential violations of balance billing requirements. Form Number: CMS-10779 (OMB control number 0938-1406); Frequency: Annually; Affected Public: Private sector and Business or other for-profits; Number of Respondents: 39,000; Number of Responses: 39,000; Total Annual Hours: 19,500. (For questions regarding this collection, contact: Patrick Edwards at patrick.edwards@cms.hhs.gov. )

Following is a summary of the use and burden associated with the subject information collection(s). More detailed information can be found in the collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

1. Title of Information Collection: Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic (CCBHC) 2024 State Proposal Demonstration Application; Type of Information Collection Request: Revision of an active collection of information request; Use: The State Proposal Demonstration Application is required to be completed by existing CCBHC grantee states and submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) to determine state readiness and eligibility to the CCBHC demonstration and every two years thereafter. The awarding of Planning Grants to states was the first phase of a two-phase process. Phase II will consist of participation in the demonstration.

The information collection includes two components: (1) the CCBHC State Proposal Demonstration Application; (2) an application to add additional CCBHCs to existing state demonstration programs, providing updates to the information previously submitted in the state's original state application; and (3) Guidance for States Reporting Changes to their Demonstration Programs. The three component collections include many of the same types of information, however the State Proposal Demonstration Application has limited use to facilitate state eligibility and Federal selection to participate in the CCBHC demonstration. The application to add CCBHCs is ongoing and can be used by states annually once a clinic meets state certification and can later be added to the program at the start of a state's annual demonstration year. The guidance for states making changes to their Demonstration programs is also ongoing and used for states to inform (and in some cases seek approval from) SAMHSA for certain types of changes to the state's Demonstration.

In January 2026, the application was updated to adhere to Administration executive orders, add requirements for applicants to complete sample cost reports, plans to implement any criteria that are not rated “ready to implement,” and describe their rebasing methodology. Minor updates were also made to the Compliance Checklist and Guidance on Addition of CCBHCs to Existing State Demonstration Programs. CMS and SAMHSA also developed Guidance for State Reporting of Changes to the Demonstration Programs.

Form Number: CMS-10398 #45 (OMB control number: 0938-1148); Frequency: Annual, one time, and on occasion; Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Governments; Number of Respondents: 43; Total Annual Responses: 43; Total Annual Hours: 1,958. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact: Beverly Boston at 410-786-4186.)

This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see ADDRESSES ).

Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension or reinstatement of an existing collection of information, before submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this requirement, CMS is publishing this notice.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: New collection (Request for a new OMB control number); Title of Information Collection: Generic Clearance for the Collection of Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey (MCBS) Respondent “Pulse” Feedback; Use: This new request will allow the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to efficiently utilize the MCBS to establish a new tool, the MCBS Pulse. This tool will establish a proactive, data-driven process that allows CMS to accomplish three goals: (1) Enhance operational efficiency by enabling decision-makers to obtain time-sensitive data points not available from other sources to inform program planning and development; (2) Add early design phase questionnaire testing capabilities by collecting rapid turnaround feedback on nascent questionnaire concepts; (3) Rapidly gather directional feedback from beneficiaries on emerging concerns for exploratory purposes and early-stage issue identification. Each MCBS Pulse survey will be brief and constrained in content, containing no more than five questions, that reflect an intentional prioritization of topics of greatest need to CMS stakeholders as well as a limitation of respondent burden and cost. Each individual MCBS Pulse survey will be incorporated into an existing MCBS round of data collection where it will be fielded for up to two weeks. The MCBS design includes three rounds per year, each lasting approximately 16 weeks. Given that each Pulse survey is exceptionally brief and fielded for only up to two weeks, CMS can conduct multiple Pulse surveys per round based on operational needs. Form Number: CMS-10948 (OMB control number: 0938-New); Frequency: Occasionally; Affected Public: Individuals or Households; Number of Respondents: 31,117; Total Annual Responses: 31,117; Total Annual Hours: 1,026. (For policy questions regarding this collection contact William Long at 410-786-7927.)

Global Refuge submitted an unsolicited proposal to ORR requesting support to maintain the IRIS platform through Fiscal Year 2026. IRIS is a national case management and reporting system used by seven resettlement agencies and hundreds of local offices. The system assists refugees in resettling in the United States by providing essential infrastructure for case placement; assurance tracking; compliance reporting; and interoperability with the START system used by the Department of State Bureau of Populations, Refugees, and Migration (PRM), ORR's Refugee Arrivals Data System database, and the International Organization for Migration's MiMosa system.

PRM funding for IRIS concluded in 2025. Global Refuge's qualifications are unique because it designed, built, and currently maintains IRIS. Without successor funding, system operations would be at risk, creating potential nationwide disruptions to refugee case processing, data continuity, and required federal reporting. Global Refuge states that maintaining IRIS in its current form is necessary to ensure uninterrupted resettlement operations during this transition period.

The proposal requests up to $2,027,470 in core funding to support system hosting, maintenance, essential personnel, security compliance, and continued interoperability with federal partners.

IRIS currently supports federal partners and consequently the refugees they serve by providing standardized data exports, assurance tracking, Reception and Placement report generation, and audit-ready compliance reporting. National and local resettlement agencies rely on the platform for case management, service tracking, and secure handling of personally identifiable information. Global Refuge notes that its capacity to sustain these activities is not possible without continued federal support.

ORR reviewed the proposal and considered the mission-critical role IRIS plays in supporting nationwide resettlement operations, the essential reporting and data integration functions it provides, and the operational risks associated with disruption. Continued support would allow ORR to maintain stable processing and reporting functions while evaluating longer-term data management needs for refugee programs.

Statutory Authority: The statutory authority for funding this application is section 412(c)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. 1522(c)(1). The cooperative agreement benefits refugees by assisting resettlement agencies and their affiliates in complying with sections 412(b)(1), (7) and (8) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1522(b)(1), (7) and (8).

Section 332 of the PHS Act (42 U.S.C. 254e), provides that the Secretary of HHS designate HPSAs based on criteria established by regulation. HPSAs are defined in statute to include (1) urban and rural geographic areas which the Secretary determines have shortages of health professionals, (2) population groups with such shortages, and (3) public or private medical facilities or other public facilities with such shortages. The required regulations setting forth the criteria for designating HPSAs are codified at 42 CFR part 5.

Section 332(k)(1) of the PHS Act provides that the Secretary, acting through the HRSA Administrator, shall identify shortages of maternity care health services “within health professional shortage areas.” Section 332(k)(1) further requires HRSA to identify MCTAs and distribute maternity care health professionals within HPSAs using the MCTAs so identified.

In a September 27, 2021, FRN (86 FR 53324), HRSA requested feedback on six proposed criteria to identify MCTAs: (1) ratio of females ages 15-44 to full time equivalent maternity care health professional; (2) percentage of females 15-44 with income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL); (3) travel time and distance to the nearest provider location with access to comprehensive maternity care services; (4) fertility rate; (5) SVI; and (6) four maternal health indicators (pre-pregnancy obesity, pre-pregnancy diabetes, pre-pregnancy hypertension, and prenatal care initiation in the first trimester). HRSA finalized the MCTA criteria on May 19, 2022 (87 FR 30501).

HRSA is changing the criteria and point scales for MCTAs by removing the SVI criterion, which had a point value of 0-2. Congress established MCTAs to ensure shortage areas identified as in need of maternity care health services had access to care. The SVI is used to help public health officials and local planners better prepare for and respond to emergency events, not to necessarily determine access to care. In recognition of the congressional intent, HRSA will reallocate one SVI point to the population to full time equivalent maternity care health professional ratio and the other SVI point to score for travel distance/time to nearest source of accessible care outside of the MCTA. Reallocating a point to the population-to-provider ratio strengthens the weight of areas with provider shortages, which is a key aspect of shortage designation, and reallocating a point to the travel time/distance strengthens the weight of geographic barriers, which directly impacts access to care especially in rural communities.

HRSA considered the impact of this change on existing MCTAs. As of September 2025, there were over 7,600 designated MCTAs—19 percent received 2 points towards the SVI criterion, 41 percent received 1 point, 33 percent received 0 points, and 6 percent did not have SVI criterion scores. Based on internal analysis of the proposed changes, by removing SVI and redistributing the points, MCTA scores will increase overall by 6.6 percent. In total, 200 of the more than 7,600 MCTAs may be subject to a decrease in MCTA score. These largely include MCTAs designated for Medicaid eligible population, low-income migrant seasonal worker population, low-income migrant farmworker population, and other population primary care HPSAs.

Primarily, HRSA uses MCTA's to distribute awards to eligible maternity care health professionals through the National Health Service Corps Loan Repayment Programs. HRSA awards these providers using either the primary care HPSA or the MCTA score of their site, whichever is higher. Although a decrease in MCTA score could potentially result in some maternity care professionals applying with lower MCTA scores, the impact may be mitigated since these providers can apply using either the primary care HPSA or the MCTA score of their site, whichever is higher.

The impact analysis is detailed in the chart below.

HRSA requests public comments on the agency's decision to eliminate the SVI criterion and to reallocate the corresponding two-point value by assigning one point to the population-to-full-time-equivalent maternity care health professional ratio and one point to the travel distance/time to the nearest source of accessible care outside of the MCTA.

An MCTA score will be generated for each primary care HPSA using the HPSA's service area. The following five scoring criteria will be included in a composite scale that will be used to identify MCTAs with the greatest shortage of maternity care health professionals: (1) ratio of females ages 15-44 to full time equivalent maternity care health professional ratio; (2) percentage of females 15-44 with income at or below 200 percent of the FPL; (3) travel time and distance to the nearest provider trained and licensed to provide the necessary care; (4) fertility rate; and (5) maternal health index which contains the following six indicators: pre-pregnancy obesity, pre-pregnancy diabetes, pre-pregnancy hypertension, prenatal care initiation in the first trimester, cigarette smoking, and the behavioral health factor. Each of these five criteria will be assigned a relative weight based on the significance of that criterion relative to all the others.

The weighted scores will be summed to develop a composite MCTA score ranging from zero to 25, with 25 indicating the greatest need for maternity care health professionals in the MCTA. Accordingly, the higher the composite score, the higher the degree of need for maternity care health services.

The population-to-provider ratio will measure the number of women of childbearing age in the service area compared to the number of maternity care health professionals in the service area. Women of childbearing age will be defined as women between the ages of 15-44 years old and maternity care health professionals will be defined as Obstetricians-Gynecologists (OB-GYN) and Certified Nurse Midwives (CNMs). A population-to-provider ratio of 1,500:1 will be used as a minimum requirement for a population to be considered reasonably served by OB-GYNs and CNMs.

Population-to-provider ratio point values will be distributed as follows:

HRSA invites public comment on the revised methodology for the scoring distribution.

The percentage of women of childbearing age living in the service area at or below 200 percent of the FPL will be used to score MCTAs, based on poverty data from the U.S. Census Bureau.

Population with income at or below 200 percent of the FPL point values will be distributed as follows:

Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 requires: written comments and/or suggestions from the public and affected agencies are invited to address one or more of the following points: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the function of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Proposed Collection Title: NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) Data Submission Request Form, 0925-0752, Expiration Date 04/30/2026, EXTENSION. National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Need and Use of Information Collection: The purpose of the NCI Genomic Data Commons (GDC) Data Submission Request Form is to continue to provide a vehicle for investigators to request the submission of their cancer genomic data into the GDC in support of data sharing. The purpose is also to provide a mechanism for the GDC Data Submission Review Committee to review and assess the data submission request for applicability to the GDC mission. The scope of the form involves obtaining information from investigators that: (1) would like to submit data about their study into the GDC, (2) are affiliated with studies that adhere to GDC data submission conditions. The benefits of the collection are that it provides the needed information for investigators to understand the types of studies and data that the GDC supports and that it provides a standard mechanism for the GDC to assess incoming data submission requests. The only change requested in this Extension is a reduction in the number of respondents from 200 to 100, resulting in a reduction in the total annual burden hours from 50 to 25. There are no other substantive changes to this submission other than the cost-of-living changes to the federal and labor costs.

OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 25 hours.